Talk:Commonwealth of Nations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Top 2 Israel 3 Hong Kong 4 Sections 5 Members of the Commonwealth of Nations 6 Map 7 Vandalism 8 Pictures 9 Ireland a republic in 1949 or 1937? 10 Head of the Commonwealth 11 South Africa 12 Commonwealth's name in Australia 13 Scotland Portal 14 Such good England! 15 Termination of membership 16 Categories Malfunction 17 FARC 18 Current and possible future applicants 19 George Bush's alleged advocacy of US membership 20 Almost all? 21 what do you think? 22 Fuji suspended. 23 language and non-members 24 Question about the relevance of this text 25 Brunei and Jamaica only members since 2004? 26 Conservapedia and the British Commonwealth 27 Nauru 28 Somaliland 29 United States 30 Introduction - former administering countries 31 Royal Anthems 32 USA 33 Contradictory statements 34 Major reorganisation and rewrite 35 Current and possible future applicants II 36 UK, part of the British Empire 37 India 38 Edit Wars 39 What is the problem with a republic? 40 Naming 41 Sources tags 42 Etc. 43 Mozambique 44 Not dominated by United States? 45 Suspension date 46 Queen Elizabeth 47 Rwanda 48 Pakistan 49 My edit 50 1,100 million is not a number 51 Requested move

Top

Are the Pitcairn Islands part of the Commonwealth? Theanthrope 18:45 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

They're a British overseas territory, so they're not members in their own right, but by virtue of the colonial power being a member. - Chrism 17:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Does anyone mind me adding Template:Commonwealth of Nations to the Commonwealth countries pages -- Chrism 17:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Israel

I'm not sure where else to ask this, so I'll ask here. Has Israel ever considered (or been offered) Commonwealth membership? It seems almost to fit (if oddly), given the British heritage (of sorts). -Penta 06:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Israel has ever been interested, though I did see an article once (in the Economist, I think) which said the Palestinian Authority were interested in joining once they got control of their own land. -- Arwel 19:09, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would Israel or the Palestinian Authority qualify? Surely they were never a colony as such, but a League of Nations Mandate which was simply allowed to expire.--garryq 17:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

See the list of members: "Mozambique (1995) (currently the only member never to have been part of the British Empire)"

I removed an incorrect statement about David Ben Gurion, claiming that he suggested that Israel join the Commonwealth. Here is what he really said: He did not suggest that Israel should join the Commonwealth but that the relations between the two countries should be developed on the basis of common values, mutual trust, and genuine equality. [1] --Gabi S. 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong

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

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

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

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

Sections

The "See Also" section has a link to a category (Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is not very meaningful. Categories should be at the bottom of the article. This category also lists only a single member nation - I will remove it.

Also, I think the "List of members by continent" can be split to its own article, making this article flow better. The list of members has been provided in the template at the bottom, so this section is superfluous anyway. I will split it into its own article and link it from "See Also." --ashwatha 19:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It says "Hong Kong could not join because it became an SAR of China in 1997". But could not China then join, like Cameroon did despite only a small part of it actually being a colony?

Or could Hong Kong not join as 'Hong Kong, China', the name it uses at international conferences?

I'm quite sure it could join if it so wished. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Members of the Commonwealth of Nations

Surprisingly, I see that Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations only contains Pakistan. As I couldn't find it in this article, is there any other page where I can find a complete and exhaustive list of the participant States? Thanks! (If possible, could I receive an answer on my it.wiki name, as I don't regularly check my Discussion page on en.wiki? This is my italian Discussion page This is the en.wiki one: Giorgio. (Drop a note) I'm here 11:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC))

There is a link in the article:

6 List of Commonwealth members

• See List of Commonwealth Members by continent -- ALoan (Talk) 23:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting a concerted effort to fill this category, especially as the Commonwealth template has, somewhat contreversially, been deleted from all the country pages. TreveX^talk 18:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In relation to Commonwealth realms becoming Republics - Asawatha mentions ' the rules'- What rules is he/she referring to ?

There is a general belief that as the original members ( all British Dominions ) had a common allegiance to the British Crown which was held to be a requirement for membership at the time . ) that becoming a Republic would break that requirement for membership . The problem is that the Dominions of 1931 have all since become Sovereign States and no longer have a common allegiance to the British Crown . They now owe their allegiance to their own Crowns as in 'Queen of Australia " etc.

The only connection now is in a 'personal union ' with Queen Elizabeth . As the Commonwealth is (now) 'a voluntary association of Sovereign States '.And as there is no longer a 'common' allegiance to the British Crown and the conversion of a 'Commonwealth Realm' from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic does not involve a change of Sovereign Nation status there should be no break in membership of the Commonwealth . The only other requirement is that the Republic must still acknowledge the Queen as the ' Head ' of the Commonwealth and of course as she is not the Sovereign of the Commonwealth this should not present a problem . LEEJON 28/7/05

This is incorrect. The rule still is that any member who recognises the Queen as Sovereign must get the permission of the other members to remain within the Commonwealth if it wishes to become a republic. Andrew Yong 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Map

Um, admittedly, geography is not my specialty, but there is something wrong with the map in the article. What is the "country" to the center-left? func(talk) 00:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Guyana? Belize? Canada? Ddye 01:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um, you're kidding, right? The left-most part of the map, (which is no where near Guyana, Belize, or Canada), shows this crazy bunch of lines in the middle of the pacific, where no crazy lines should be. The (whatever it is) can be seen almost touching Australia on the right side of the map. func(talk) 03:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little confused. Those lines are rather commonly used on maps show the general boundaries of states that are made up of multiple islands in the Pacific such, as Micronesia, Kiribati, Tuvalu, etc. Check out this link: [2]. Ddye 03:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I'm sorry too. It seems pretty obvious now that you point it out. :)

In the thumbnail version, it's really unclear what it is, and it isn't all that much better in the larger version. Could we actually "dash-ify" the lines around the islands? func(talk) 04:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Do featured articles always have this much trouble? Twice since I logged on 10 minutes ago. Ddye 01:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Articles linked from the Main Page have a habit of being vandalized. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

I still believe some pictures of the representatives would be suited for this article -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, consumers in Commonwealth countries retain many preferences for goods from other members of the Commonwealth, so that even in the absence of tariff privileges, there continues to be more trade within the Commonwealth than might be predicted.

On what basis is this predicted? Does this not then still constitute an economic bloc? - Centrx 08:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ireland a republic in 1949 or 1937?

It says in the article that Ireland (the independent part) became a Republic in 1949. I thought that was in 1937 (after having been a separate monarchy since 1922).

From Republic of Ireland - "On the 29 December 1937 a new constitution, the Constitution of Ireland, came into force. It replaced the Irish Free State by a new state called simply 'Ireland'. Though this state's constitutional structures provided for a President of Ireland instead of a king, it was not technically a republic. The principal key role possessed by a head of state, that of representing the state symbolically internationally remained vested in statute law in the King as an organ. On 1 April 1949 the Republic of Ireland Act declared a republic, with the functions previously given to the King given instead to the President of Ireland." -- KTC 13:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Head of the Commonwealth

Is this statement really true, or just somebody's crazy speculation: "As a result it is not clear whether the current heir apparent to the British and many other Commonwealth thrones, Prince Charles, will automatically assume the position of Head of the Commonwealth or whether another head of state within the Commonwealth might be asked to assume that position."

Does anyone seriously think that the Head of the Commonwealth could ever be someone other that the British monarch? --JW1805 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

--Paul Campbell 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, that technically it could change, suggestions about changing the Headship of the Commonwealth a few years ago, have been greeted with distinct unenthusiasm. I would not hold your breath, It would be most likely stay linked.

However 124.197.31.208 should not have removed that, and it is a citeable fact. I'll revert Brian | (Talk) 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

the map shows South Africa is part of the commonwealth I know they did leave did they re-join Dudtz7/20/05 6:17pm est

They rejoined in 1994, see http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilateral/profiles/common.htm Ddye 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• See, List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations by name (or one of the other lists of members) for details of states that have joined and left. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth's name in Australia

I live in Australia and if someone talked about "the Commonwealth of Nations" few would know what you were talking about. Despite Australia's offical name being "Commonwealth of Australia" the Commonwealth of Nations is always called the Commonwealth. Ted BJ 10:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit of a non-issue here. Australians are intelligent enough to determine which "Commonwealth" is the topic of discussion. However, it's furphy to say that few would know what the "Commonwealth of Nations" is: of course they would!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Scotland Portal

The Scotland Portal is now up and running. It is a project in the early stages of development, but I think it could be a very useful resource indeed, perhaps more for general readers (the vast majority I presume), rather than committed editors, who may be more attracted by the great possibilities of the notice board format: Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board.

Give it a Watch, and lend a hand if you can. It is (hopefully) fairly low-maintenance, but if we run with the "News" section, that will take dedication: time which I cannot commit to presently myself. Most other boxes need replacment/update only weekly, fortnightly, or monthly, plus the occasional refreshment of the Scotland-related categories. Anyway, I assume this is how the other Portals are run, so we can follow their lead.

Please add the following code - {{portalpar|Scotland}} - to your own User page, and you will have the link to the portal right there for easy access. I will investigate how other portals use shortcuts too.

Assistance from Wikipedians in the rest of the Commonwealth, and indeed everywhere, would be greatly appreciated!--Mais oui! 09:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Such good England!

arouse both some hostility and indifference in Ireland

Arousing indifference: I can't bear to get rid of it.

202.175.143.143 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Termination of membership

The article currently suggests that only republics have/had to get the agreement of the commonwealth membership to remain in the commonwealth. I would assume/expect that other countries such as Malaysia which are NOT republics but upon their independence recognised different indigenous monarchs as their heads of states also had to get permission to remain as members. If I'm correct, the article needs to be corrected/clarified Nil Einne 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories Malfunction

• I CutNpasted these three categories directly off the main category pages...

and they are showing up as redlinks near the article bottom, not in the category bar. Political history of England + Political history of Australia + United Kingdom political history. Since there is no reason to trash the article, I'm placing the attention Template herein. FrankB 06:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats because you didn't add the "Category:" to it (sans the quotes).--Kross^Talk 11:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FARC

Lack of references. Skinnyweed 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Current and possible future applicants

This section should be revised. Future applicants is completely conjectural and should be removed or seperated as another Wiki entry. And this part:The four nations which comprise the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales) have in recent years moved towards a more federal style of relationship. It is not impossible that these four nations may eventually be completely independent... does not make any sense at all, politically, historically, factually, or constitutionally. It should be removed.--Gary Joseph 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just you wait, Scotland will be independent before we can say "but..." ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

But.....:-) Xerex

But..........?

And over 6 months later... "but"...?  :-p Tomer^talk 04:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sick and tired of this adolescent chauvinism. Hakluyt bean 15:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

George Bush's alleged advocacy of US membership

I'd never heard of this, before reading the article. Can someone provide a source please? Thanks. 158-152-12-77 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the paragraph stating that Palestine, Rwanda and Yemen have applied for membership in the Commonwealth cites a web page which does not appear to be accessible: http://www.thecommonwealth.org/document/34293/35232/37061/chogm97communique.htm --Metropolitan90 08:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the U.S. section as I could find no support for these statements which were added by an anon account on August 13 (the account is frequently blocked for vandalism but the edits to this article seem well-intentioned). Rmhermen 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That Commonwealth link works for me. Paragraph 21 refers to Palestine, Rwanda and Yemen. -- Arwel (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the link works for me now. --Metropolitan90 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost all?

The Commonwealth of Nations (CN), usually known as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, almost all of which are former colonies of the United Kingdom. (emphasis mine)

Which weren't at one point colonies? Or is the only exception the UK?

Mozambique never had any ties with the UK. josh (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

what do you think?

did the former colonies remained loyal to uk because the most part of the natives were exterminated (like in Australia) by the colons or get submissed to the colons (like in South Africa w/apartheid) ? are these personal guessings right?

• the colons, minority among the native majority remained loyal to uk in order to get protectied from an independence civil war led by colony natives against the colon authority.
• the natives were not able to vote the independence referendum unlike the colons?

thanks. Shame On You 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, like every other Empire in the history of mankind, the British Empire had dark moments. Fortunately, by our modern standards it was relatively few, but one of them you touch upon: the killing of many Australian Aborigines. I doubt that those affected were too keen on notions of British Imperialism.

However, the British Empire also brought about many global changes and situations we now regard as enlightenment: much to the displeasure of those who based their fortunes on the African/American slave trade, the British Navy destroyed the international slave trade. Also, the British Empire established education in many "uncivilised" countries, eradicated famine, ended long-standing tribal wars, introduced the concepts of suffrage, equality of gender and racial equality to much of the world. Add to that the water, sewarage, policing etc. etc., the British Empire made much of the world a better place to live.

Additionally, the British Empire was still regarded as the foremost power-blok around the time of it's evolution into the Commonwealth. Given a choice of being small and alone, or small, independent yet part of a massive power-blok, many chose the latter.

So, I think many "natives" would have thought "Hey, that sounds like our best bet!", exercised their Imperially-given right of suffrage, and elected to remain in the Commonwealth. Just look at South Africa: re-entered the Commonwealth only after the "natives" were given the right to vote.

Fuji suspended.

[3] < Not sure how to adjust article to reflect that but thought it's something that people need to work in. - JVG 14:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Fiji's membership not since been "unsuspended"? Tomer^talk 04:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

language and non-members

Are the United States, Ireland, and Fiji the only (partly) English-speaking nations which are not Commonwealth members? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.221.12 (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Fiji's membership is suspended, not revoked. Only the nation itself can revoke its own membership. No expulsions. So that leaves Ireland and US, with Ireland having once joined, but left. So, that leaves the US as the only English-speaking nation to never be a Commonwealth member. 129.219.6.193 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not incredibly surprising, since the concept of the Commonwealth didn't come along until long after the US had declared its independence (and fought an incredibly bloody [and I would say "senselessly so"] war to obtain it). The very concept of the Commonwealth was originally one of recognition of British "paternity", of sorts, over the nations of the Commonwealth. The idea that the US would (or could, given the tone and rationale of its founding) acquiesce to such a concept or its resultant organization, defies logic and denies rationality. Ireland, bearing a great deal of well-founded resentment toward England and especially toward the Crown, has its own (very different) reasons for not wishing to continue its membership, and terminated it only once it felt safe from the threat of invasion for doing so. Tomer^talk 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about the relevance of this text

The article presently contains the following text:

The largest military spenders are the United Kingdom at US$48 billion, India at US$21 billion, and Australia and Canada at US$10.5 billion each. The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance. see : List of countries by military expenditures

If the Commonwealth is not a military alliance, why is any of this text necessary (to say nothing of relevant)? Tomer^talk 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Brunei and Jamaica only members since 2004?

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

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

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

Conservapedia and the British Commonwealth

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

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

Nauru

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

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

Somaliland

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

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

United States

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

WP:NOT#CBALL doesn't apply here, nobody is predicting that the US will or will not join the Commonwealth. All that's being presented is the reality of the situation: 1) 13 original colonies were under British governance; 2) that qualifies them to enter the Commonwealth of Nations; 3) States are not allowed to individually enter into treaties or other foreign alliances. Is it really necessary to provide a source for each of the previous three statements? (Though, one is already cited to the US Constitution.) --G2bambino 16:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the CBALL text? It's not just PREDICTION. It covers SPECULATION, and it has to go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, sources are required if challenged. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's speculating? --G2bambino 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is, if it discusses hypothetical situations. "If the United States were to join..." - that is speculation. It is speculating about the hypothetical situation of the United States joining the Commonwealth. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've reworded it to remove the "if." --G2bambino 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not good enough. You are still extrapolating and conducting your own original research. You are implying that because of the case of Cameroon, the US could do the same. It's still as unacceptable as the previous wording. Stick to the facts, that the US was a British colony but is not a Commonwealth member, and there is no problem. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Please note I already have compromised somewhat, with accepting that all the text prior to the "if" is reasonable.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything - I didn't write the section in question. However, it seemed to sit relatively undisturbed through many months of editing - I imagine because it isn't making any completely ridiculous assertions. Perhaps the wording previously wasn't composed to the best level, but I, for one, can't really understand your personal objections, even to the sentence you insist on removing, and by doing so implying that the US cannot join the Commonwealth. I think the point to make clear is that that there's ambiguity in this situation, and including both the US constitutional provisions as well as previous precedent makes clear inherent conflicts in the idea of the US, or part of the US, joining the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 18:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have outlined my objections, pointing to Wikipedia's policies at WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NOR. It is not for Wikipedia to speculate on the technicalities of the USA joining the Commonwealth, even if it is based on the wording of the US Constitution or the Commonwealth's criteria, because that is original research. Unless it was raised as a proposal (a serious one, along the lines of France's in the 1950s), or someone reputable did some attributable research into it and came to that conclusion, it shouldn't be discussed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon - you are implying that because Cameroon did it, the US could. You are making an argument there, admittedly based on a fact (the fact of the manner of Cameroon's joining), but it is an argument nevertheless. That constitutes OR. Can't you see that? You are confusing facts with arguments. Wikipedia is about the former not the latter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth does the paragraph now assert the US could join the Commonwealth? To the contrary, it asserts that the situation of the US is unclear - much of the US was not previously under British control, the 13 states that are former British colonies cannot join independently of the nation, however, there is precedent of countries with territories not formerly governed by the UK joining. I can't, for the life of me, see how this is trying to put forward any "argument" other than that the present facts make the US's situation as potential Commonwealth member ambiguous. --G2bambino 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say you are "asserting" anything? I said you are implying it. It is OR that you are even suggesting there is a position to be unclear on. Unless there has been talk of the US joining, why are you even discussing precedents for it doing so? Again, you are in the land of speculation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, then I suggest you argue for ridding the article completely of the section "Non-applicants," as it, by your logic, implies Egypt, Myanmar, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Hong Kong and France could join the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You clearly completely misunderstand both WP:NOT#CBALL and my point if you think that (well, I know you misunderstand because you are continuing to persist with this). There is a difference between saying "was a British colony, but never applied for membership" (verifiable facts) and "was a British colony, if applied for membership then..." or "was a British colony, similar to colony Y, so could join similarly to colony Y" (speculation and extrapolation based on historical facts). The rest of the section clearly limits itself to the first. On a previous occasion [7] I removed some speculation in this section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears you misunderstand the difference between "might be able to" (as in, there may be a possibility of the US joining) and "could" (as in, the US definitely could join if it chose to). I believe the paragraph in question attempts to say the former, not the latter, and saying the former is neither OR nor attempting to predict future outcomes. Removing the Cameroon sentence leaves one believing that because of specific clauses of the US Constitution, the individual states cannot join, and therefore the US as a whole will never join. That's more speculation than anything else. --G2bambino 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Both sentences should go. There should be no speculation or analysis on the USA's ability to join. Just the fact that it is eligible, it has not joined and has not applied to join. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Introduction - former administering countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royal Anthems

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

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

USA

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

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

Contradictory statements

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

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

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

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

This article is just seriously fcked up

Major reorganisation and rewrite

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

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

Current and possible future applicants II

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

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

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

ps also the text I removed was incorrect. British overseas territories and crown dependencies are NOT sovereign states. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What's listed are POSSIBLE applicates that are able to due to the relationship is has with the British Empire. It's stated as fact as has others that were in the same position. Here's a link to prove it too! http://www.15ccem.com/15CCEM/CCEM_MainContent.jsp;jsessionid=367113CBDAC84B7DEAC85D1F77B477D0?pContentID=830&p_applic=CCC&pElementID=443&pMenuID=171&p_service=Content.show&

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

I'm shocked that you even consider that reference evidence for those claims that you have now readded.

• "Other eligable applicants could also come from break-away states" - WHERE does the source back up that claim?
• "or from any of the remaining [ot's, dependencies etc]" - WHERE does the source back up that claim?
• "if any later become fully independent" - WHERE does it state that?

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

Oops - missed an all important paragraph in the reference, adjusting my post accordingly and semi self reverted. Still, the claim about breakaway states is not backed up by that reference. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind the overseas territories being listed. The Commonwealth does currently afford them certain say in matters related to them, and (as that link implies), they are held in some regard as 'members in waiting'. Whilst this is well-established in internal Commonwealth matters, I think we need to find a better source for it. Until then (and it shouldn't really be too long; I'm sure the Round Table has covered some of the BOTs), one should be cautious about using them.

I'm more concerned with 'non-members', etc. The only applicants mentioned should be those that are also given in reliable sources (one's opinion that they might meet the criteria in future is not enough, i.e. follow WP:SYN). At the moment, as far as I can see, that's Rwanda, Yemen, Israel, Algeria, East Timor, Angola, Cambodia, Sudan, and Senegal, plus the TRNC and Palestinian National Authority. That said, if one can find others supported by reliable sources, they can be added.

This matter is a point of consternation for me on the article Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria. Having written a well-referenced article on the development of the criteria (that, given a couple of paragraphs and some pictures, could easily be a GA), the article is somewhat ruined by a completely unsourced list of members that some over-zealous individual thinks could join the Commonwealth some day. We need to start thinking WP:CITE. Bastin 12:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Further to what I just said, I'd like to point out that Volume 95(4) (September 2006) of the Round Table is entirely dedicated to overseas territories and small sovereign island states. Take your pick! Bastin 12:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

UK, part of the British Empire

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

That's just your opinion. The term British Empire was never an official term, and was equivalent to saying "British possessions" or "British colonies". People would say they were heading out and taking up service "in the empire". Your analogies are also false. Germany was the German Empire, and Rome was just a city. In short, the British Empire was called British because it was owned by Britain. TharkunColl 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but we're not gonna 'edit war' over it - I'm not gonna 'revert'. PS- thanks for responding; as I've said, your opinon is valued (as is everyone's). GoodDay 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, by saying UK was a part of the British Empire, made the UK seem like a territory or colony. OK, I see your point now - UK was the head of the Empire. GoodDay 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The UK was the colonial power. The term "head" reminds one of "head of the Commonwealth", but it was most certainly not a ceremonial role. TharkunColl 17:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not ceromonial. GoodDay 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

So "head" doesn't really do it justice, and sounds too informal anyway. TharkunColl 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We need something though; howabout 'imperal head'? GoodDay 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Yep, that's perfect. GoodDay 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument against the fact that the Empire's head was at Westminster, but the UK did not "own" the empire, the empire beyond the British Isles was as much British territory as the British Isles themselves were; the inhabitants of all lands within the empire were British subjects, the Royal Union Flag was the flag of all the lands within the empire. There's nothing wrong in pointing out the UK was the locus of the empire, but it's a fallacy to argue Britain was not itself part of the British Empire. --G2bambino 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is debatable. In some contexts (such as maps), perhaps yes. In others definitely no. Cartographers do not control politics. TharkunColl 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, please present a sourced argument that the UK was itself not a part of the British Empire. I think you'll find that GoodDay was correct in his first statement here: Germany was a part of the German Empire & Rome was a part of the Roman Empire; ditto for Japan. --G2bambino 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I hadn't realised, or had forgotten, that my edits yesterday were (slightly) less than 24 hours ago. With regard to the UK in Empire question, your version leaves no question that it was. The version agreed yesterday left the position ambiguous, which better reflects reality, which was itself ambiguous. So, answer this - if the UK was part of the Empire, then when did it cease to be so? TharkunColl 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous? What's ambiguous about "..all of which are former possessions of the British Empire, except for the United Kingdom"? [Emphasis mine.] It seems quite clear that the sentence tries to state that the UK was not a part of the British Empire. If you want to make it ambiguous, why not go with something like:

The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth and formerly as the British Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, all of which are former possessions of the United Kingdom, except for Mozambique.

Or:

...all of which are former possessions of the British Crown, except for..."

That would make it ambiguous as to whether or not the UK was part of the Empire. --G2bambino 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I was about to revert myself after realizing exactly what you just said in your edit summary: the UK is still presently a possesion of the UK.

The overall issue isn't what nation was the possesor of the Empire, but whether or not the possesor is itself a part of what it possesses. Territory within the British Isles was as much UK territory as South Africa, India, Australia, etc., therefore it seems incorrect to remove the UK from its own empire. There must be a better way to word this; I'll have to give it some further thought. --G2bambino 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "all of which are former British colonies, except for the United Kingdom itself and Mozambique." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that makes perfect sense. --G2bambino 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino's argument makes sense to me. When people talk about empires you cannot say that the founding city or nation is not a part of the empire it creates. The Russian and Ottoman Empires are good examples of this as is the British. It does not makes sense to say that the Commonwealth contains countries from the former British Empire except for Britain (yes I know UK) and Mozambique. This logic could allow people to believe that Washington DC is not a part of America since it is the seat of power and not a represented state, yes my example is extreme and flawed but you get my point. -- UKPhoenix79 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

India

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

It is in the list. And it's also mentioned in the (shockingly bad) History section, and discussed at great length under the London Declaration section. Bastin 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I swear that wasn't there five minutes ago....--ScreaminEagle 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars

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

So true & only by a few! I think I know how to make it look more clearer since the way it's done may seem to confuse the odd ones who see it that way! That-Vela-Fella 03:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with a republic?

The article refers several times to issues with members that become republics being ejected from the Commonwealth. It also says, though, that most members are republics. What is the problem with a member becoming a republic?

Lemuel 16:01, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

There is actually contradictory information in the article. I suspect that the paragraph near the top is correct, i.e. that there is now no problem with a republic joining the Commonwealth provided they recognise the Queen as "Head of the Commonwealth" - a post which does not seem to impinge on national government at all. DJ Clayworth 21:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not contradictory. By the rules, a nation ceases to be a member once it becomes a republic unless it gets the permission of other members to stay on. It is true that a majority of the members are republics - they have just received permission from other members, a precedent set by India in 1950. I agree that it is paradoxical, but there it is. The reason for the rule is that the organisation was originally meant to be for countries which recognized Queen Elizabeth as head of state. But 1950 onwards, colonialism became outdated, so members began to let other members stay after becoming republics. --ashwatha 03:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm starting to understand. However, do countries still lose their membership once they become a republic? The Commonwealth Timeline just says "London Declaration allows republics to retain membership, acknowledging the British Monarch as Head of the Commonwealth." It doesn't look like a country loses its membership per se, but just acknowledges the Monarch. --Beirne 04:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

They still need the permission of other members. Without this formality their membership lapses - this happened in 1961 when South Africa became a republic and more recently in 1987 when the second Fijian coup overthrew the government and declared a republic. In contrast, the first coup had no effect on Fiji's membership, and the third coup only resulted in suspension from the Commonwealth.

Suspension as an option only dates from the 1990s - previously the rule was non-interference in other members' internal affairs. If South Africa in 1961 had not required the other members' permission to become a republic, it could have remained in the Commonwealth indefinitely, since there was (and probably still is) no mechanism for expelling a country from the Commonwealth against its will. Andrew Yong 13:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the membership lapses - South Africa voluntarily withdrew from the Commonwealth after it was suspended and it was suspended because the other members of the Commonwealth considered that it was in serious and persistant breach of the Commonwealths principles! Not because it became a republic ! The example of India is basicaly irrelevant - the question in 1949 was whether India could leave the British Empire which was considered at the time a basic requirement for membership and still remain a member ? .That requirement ceased to be relevant when all of the 'Dominions 'subsequently became Sovereign Nations in there own right. And thus no longer 'within the Empire' . ( note the common allegiance was to 'the Crown' not to the office holder of that office ) If a member substantialy changes its constitution today the question is - does it still comply with the Commonwealths principles ? ie : democracy and good governance . South Africa could very well have remained a member indefinitely . LEEJON 15/9/05

You are confusing what happened with South Africa in 1962 with Zimbabwe in 2003. South Africa was never suspended - there was at the time no procedure for suspending a member - faced with opposition to its apartheid policies it decided not to seek the permission of the other members to remain as a republic, and consequently its membership lapsed when it ceased to recognise the Queen as its head of state.

The common allegiance to the Crown is exactly what we are talking about. If a member ceases to bear allegiance to the Crown it ceases to be a member unless it gets permission to remain within the Commonwealth as a republic. End of story. Andrew Yong 12:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Commonwealth is a Costitutional Monarchy not a Republic the only country that has partial republic system is canada Dudtz

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

Dudtz - The Commonwealth is not a Constitutional Monarchy - some of the individual members of the Commonwealth operate as such but the Commonwealth itself is not a political entity , has no Constitution and no legal jurisdiction . It is a 'free association' of independant Sovereign Nations . The Queen is the titular 'Head' of the Commonwealth but NOT the Sovereign .[ LEEJON 31 Aug 05 ]

Naming

Most people refer to it as the Commonwealth and previously the British Commonwealth. The of Nations bit on the end is the offical title but no-one uses it. I have never heard of anyone referring to Australia as the Commonwealth, not even Bruce Ruxton. Wallie 18:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Sources tags

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

Etc.

There's a lot of colons in this article (like in the paragraph about the 30% of the world's population, India and Tuvalu), and these look, well, odd in American english, but are they typical for British english? And since the Commonwealth is a chiefly British organization, it would seem more reasonable to keep them if the Brits use them. However, if not even the Brits use them, they should be cleaned up. --Golbez 15:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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

---

Would somebody please give context for the de Gaule suggestion? It's sorta irresponsible to give a tantalizing hint like that otherwise! Doops 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems implausible that de Gaulle, who was always concerned with France's freedom of action, and always suspicious of England and the Commonwealth, would ever have suggested this. Perhaps some remark of his was misconstrued, or perhaps User:Jtdirl, who added this on 21:00, 3 Jan 2003, is pulling our legs. Unless I see good evidence, I plan to remove this remark in two weeks. --Macrakis 23:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mozambique

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

"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

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

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

Not dominated by United States?

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

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

Suspension date

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

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

Queen Elizabeth

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

• Wrong, her regnal title is, Queen Elizabeth II, see the article about her. David Underdown 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, there is no such thing as a 'Queen of England' anymore, that title ended at the same time as the Kingdom of England ended back in 1702 88.111.23.208 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rwanda

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

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

Pakistan

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

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

No they are still technically members, but suspended. They have not been expelled from membership. David Underdown (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that Fiji is also suspended, yet still a member. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit

I don't know what happened there. I could have sworn I just took out the image. I don't understand how all of that other stuff was changed. --Kevin W. 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1,100 million is not a number

It says the population of India is 1,100 million, which is not a number. The correct population of India is 1.1 billion.

It's a perfectly good and understandable number. Not everyone likes to use "billions" because of possible ambiguity. -- Arwel (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup... by US definition, that is 1.1 billion but by the traditional UK definition, it's 0.0011 billion. 1,100 million is perfectly sensible. - JVG 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

1,100,000,000 eliminates ambiguity and the appearance (to US eyes) of a ridiculously misformed number. Tomer^talk 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's common practice to choose your exponential as desired, thus I have seen plenty of balance sheets for bluechip companies that refer to "thousands of K", "thousand millions", "billions", etc. Generally depends on the scale. All but two of the countries of the world have a population below 1,000,000,000 (which in English is called a milliard ;-), so milliards/billions are no more suitable measures of population than trillions or googles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.138.193 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Requested move