Talk:Commonwealth

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

Dictionary external link[edit]

Why is there a dictionary link? I haven never seen any other article with such an external link. --Menchi 02:13 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nobody commented for months, so I removed the following:
LIST OF DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF COMMONWEALTH
--Menchi 01:28, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas[edit]

For description of Puerto Rico and Northern Marianas go to CIA factbook :https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2006.html
-- 23 sep georg

Corrections[edit]

It seems that everybody has a warped view of what a republic is. I have corrected it and those external links show that even these people don't have a clue to what they are talking about. That is why good and correct definitions are needed. I refer all to the Classical definition of republic and get some true knowledge.WHEELER 18:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mr. 172 You want to do Battle? I reverted your edits.WHEELER 15:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And I've reverted them again. We could avoid battle if you simply bought a dictionary and looked up the word "democracy", but whatever.
Encouraging reverting wars, whether jokingly or not, is decidedly un-encyclopædic and against Wikipedia policies. And WHEELER, you should not assume that your edits will be accepted by all, or that your understanding is the sole authority.--Cyberjunkie 08:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

just amazing![edit]

"When Britain and France nearly married": BBC. and all after the english treachery against the french during the Suez Canal building... god saves the providence and dieu et mon droit. a section would worth it. Cliché Online 13:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation[edit]

perhaps a disambig page should be created with "commonwealth" so people don't have to trawl through the article to find which Commonwealth they want. Thedreamdied 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reine de l'Australie[edit]

Elizabeth II became the first monarch to be titled "Queen of Australia" when she ascended to the throne, it was in the 1970s that "Queen of the United Kingdom" and "Defender of the Faith" were removed from her full Australian title.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.28.240.20 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 April 2007 (ACST).

Actually, no, she was not known properly as the "Queen of Australia" until legislation enacted by the Commenwealth Parliament created the title in 1973.--cj | talk 11:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panama example removed[edit]

I've removed the example on Chiriquí Province, which appears to just reflect one person's personal dissatisfaction with the Panamanian national government.--Pharos 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calque?[edit]

Is commonwealth a calque on republic? [1] I don't think so. Calque says "a word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word (Latin: "verbum pro verbo") or root-for-root translation". Commonwealth, or commonweal, is clearly not a literal translation of "public affairs". If anyone says its a calque, can we see a reference, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is nice that you posed a question at last publicly. please do not change article until you find answer not just your impressions. --77.115.17.5 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey buddy, you did not check it. what you mean by "refer"? --77.113.28.117 (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're discourseur. You've been indef blocked for sokpuppetry, and it doesn't look like you've learnt anything William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I added four references to the US States section and one to the US insular states section making five references and therefore removed the {{unreferenced|date=August 2008}} tag.Etineskid (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Australia[edit]

I refer to this passage about Australia's government system- "It is largely based on the British Westminster System, adopting many of its practices and precedents, but with a similar structure — House of Representatives, and Senate — to the U.S. Congress." I think the latter part somewhat over-states American influence on Australia's government system. Beyond the labels for the (all-elected) upper and lower houses, Australia's parliament functions in pretty much the same way as Britain's and probably Canada's. The founding fathers of Australia's constitution thought it a bit silly to have a house of Lords when Australia has none, and a house of Commons when all are commoners (Not sure why Canada does, tho'). If Australia has some similarities with America in its government structure, it is primarily due to both countries sharing the same cultural origin (despite 1776 etc.). DanBrodman (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Australia definitely uses the Westminster style of government in not having a separate executive and legislature, there are more similarities to the US than just the names of the legislatures. From Australian Senate#Origins and role:
"From a comparative governmental perspective, the Australian Senate exhibits distinctive characteristics. Unlike upper houses in other Westminster system governments, the Senate is not a vestigial body with limited legislative power. Rather it was intended to play, and does play, an active role in legislation. Rather than being modelled after the House of Lords, as the Canadian Senate was, the Australian Senate was in part modelled after the United States Senate, by giving equal representation to each state. The Constitution intended to give less populous states added voice in a Federal legislature, while also providing for the revising role of an upper house in the Westminster system."
There are other areas of Australia's COnstitution that are modeled after that of the US, such as a similar federal-state relationship, which is somewhat different than that of Canada. So no, it's more than just a shared cultural history: The Australians had 110 years of the US system's existance to draw on and adapt to suit its own needs, and indeed did. - BilCat (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see House of Commons#History and naming for why "Commons" is not a reference to "commoners". - BilCat (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Brodman gets shut down -I am inclined to agree with Bill. ```LikeAmoFo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.161.71.12 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Mention[edit]

Does somebody know the oldest mention of common weal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.30.190 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian Commonweath[edit]

Sometimes historians mention use the term Venetian Commonwealth for the Adriatic lands under the rule of the Republic of Venice.--Deguef (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commonwealth. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning and eytmology[edit]

The writing:

"Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good."

..has the problem of claiming the term belongs to something called "traditional English." Wikipedia uses the Common English language, not traditional English language. Perhaps the writer confuses language with culture. The term "commonwealth" is something largely co-oped by the British, and the term itself conforms to its kind of terminology. For example, calling a monarchy state a "commonwealth" has the problem of emphasizing wealth and not liberty or something philosophical. So its British jargon. Continuing:

"Historically it has sometimes been synonymous with "republic"."

The proper thing to do here is to reference the dictionaries directly, and start from there. In its current use, where the "commonwealth" is a monarchy, there is a complete difference from the idea of a republic.-Inowen (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen:: I disagree with your interpretation of the first sentence. It does not identify "commonwealth" as a term belonging to a "traditional English" language; it identifies it as a traditional term belonging to the English language. You rightly say that Wikipedia does not use "traditional English", but neither does it use "Common English" as you claim—there is no language or dialect that I have ever heard of that goes by either name, and Wikipedia just uses plain English of various dialects. Also your opinion that the term "commonwealth" is co-opted by the British seems baseless, and appears to partly rely on a misunderstanding of "wealth" as having its usual modern meaning ("material riches"), not the sense "weal, well-being" that is intended (as the article already states).
I agree that the claims in the lead need better referencing, although it is not always necessary for the lead itself to carry these references if it merely summarises well-sourced information from later in the article (MOS:LEADCITE). -- Perey (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move as I imagine no one will be surprised to see. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– The term "Commonwealth" has no primary topic, the nearest claimant being Commonwealth of Nations. Readers would be best served by moving the disambiguation page to the base name. Certes (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pageviews: [2]. Incoming links from main namespace: Commonwealth of Nations 9306, Commonwealth of Independent States 4145, Commonwealth (U.S. state) 1771, Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) 1659, Commonwealth of England 1248, Commonwealth of the Philippines 1137, Commonwealth 184. Commonwealth did have 750 incoming links until recently but three quarters needed correction and most referred to the Commonwealth. Google search results are mainly for the Commonwealth of Nations; other providers are more balanced but do not suggest that commonwealth as a concept is a primary topic. Certes (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should spell out the argument more clearly. Page views show that the general concept of commonwealth fails two criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it is neither much more likely than any other single topic nor more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought. (I see no clear evidence either way as to whether it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value). Per WP:QUALIFIER: If the article is not about the primary topic for the ambiguous name, the title must be disambiguated. Per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. Certes (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article seems like a WP:BROADCONCEPT to me. Is there any reason that isn't sufficient? No argument has been made.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zcxvbnm. Deus et lex (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Based on what Certes said about bad incoming links, which unquestionably degrade the encyclopedia. Until he thought to check, there were 750 incoming links, and three-quarters of them were wrong. That is beyond ridiculous.
The pageview analysis for 2020 clearly shows that the broad topic is not WP:PTOPIC by any criterion - Commonwealth of Nations got 8.5 times as many views as Commonwealth. Narky Blert (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT then. WP:SURMOUNTABLE applies to this argument.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have "fixed it" by editing over 500 articles with incorrect wikilinks this week. However, more will appear, and sitting at my computer 24/7 watching for them is not the optimal solution. This RM aims to address the root cause of the problem. Certes (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: SOFIXIT? Those were the bad links which had been added since Certes' last check in 2018. Are you willing to monitor this page to fix the bad bluelinks to it created at the rate of 1 every 2 days? Narky Blert (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: They may be incorrect links, but seem harmless. Pointing to the definition of a Commonwealth is not what I'd call something to be concerned about - at worst, someone expects a link to a specific Commonwealth and just gets the general definition. It's definitely not on the level of meaning one person but pointing to another, for example.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the improvement is minor: a reader who clicks on Canada is a Commonwealth country learns that Canada is in some commonwealth or other and doesn't have to dig too deeply to work out that Commonwealth of Nations was intended. However, the main point is not the bad links but what our readers seek when they type in "Commonwealth". The evidence suggests that it is not usually the general concept of commonwealth described in this article. Certes (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Incorrect" is a synonym of "wrong". Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – term as primarytopic is seldom sensible. Not a dictionary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is there a better word than "term" for the other uses of "Commonwealth"? That would at least set aside some of my concerns about this proposal. Deus et lex (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A good question. Alternatives include (concept), (government) and (community), but we should pick one which could not describe the Commonwealth of Nations or other alternative meanings. Certes (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Community", or "government" (in that order) sound like the most accurate ones. If the consensus is to move the page then I'd be comfortable moving to either of these. Deus et lex (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer "community". The term "anarchist commonwealth" exists 1 2, and anarchism is the antithesis of government. Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is not the primary topic for Wikipedia. Incorrect incoming links do harm the encyclopedia, so it's better to disambiguate. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think it's better to leave the primary as the broad concept article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BROADCONCEPT. Rather than having disambiguation pages at these titles linking to existing articles on these entities by nation, each should contain an article describing in general terms what the concept is, and how the different examples of this concept relate to each other. WP:DAB's section on broad concept articles comes before the section on primary topics for a good reason; broad concept articles do a much better job of helping readers find more about the topic than disambiguation pages. None of the supporters have argued for why a broad concept article is inappropriate in this case, and that's because there is no argument to be made. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australia[edit]

Following on from the discussion above, many of the remaining links to Commonwealth refer to the Commonwealth of Australia. A typical phrase is The Australian Federal Police enforce the laws of the Commonwealth. Is this page the best destination for that link? If not, where should it lead, and through what redirect if appropriate? (I'll inform WikiProject Australia.) Certes (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Commonwealth" (abbreviated "Cth") is a shorthand reference to the Australian Government (which is officially the "Commonwealth of Australia"), perhaps that is the best place to redirect these links? Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on context, I guess? How many such remaining links are there? Gryllida (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most but not all of these. That's about a quarter of the remaining links to Commonwealth. I may have missed a few phrases like Queenslanders obey state and Commonwealth laws (fictional example). Certes (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Certes. As a "new" Australian (of several decades), I don't think of "the Commonwealth" as the government, and its usage in Australian articles baffled me at first. It is also a tad confusing that "Commonwealth of Australia" links to Australia, but Commonwealth Government links to Australian Government. It's quite possible that I have linked to the wrong one in the past, but think I usually link to Australian Government these days. Hopefully someone with more experience in government or law can provide some guidance here. Or do we need to DAB the Commonwealth article? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I hadn't noticed Commonwealth Government. That's also ambiguous, but Australia seems to be its primary topic. The RM above discusses the case for and against making the Commonwealth article a dab. Certes (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certes, see also the mention by Deus et lex above. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "community" is the right sense of meaning for "The Commonwealth" (of Australia). The Commonwealth Government is the government of the Commonwealth, not a synonym for it. The Commonwealth transcends the state (former colony) interests - a member of the Australian Public Service is a Commonwealth public servant rather than in a state's public service nor a servant purely of the government. I suspect the word comes from the time when the new states still thought of themselves as six essentially independent countries, and federation was breaking down the trade barriers. I suspect that most of these uses should go through the Commonwealth of Australia redirect to the Nation, rather than to Commonwealth Government. --Scott Davis Talk 13:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On that basis there may be nothing to do, but I think the question was worth asking. It becomes less urgent now that "Commonwealth" isn't to be a dab. Certes (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ScottDavis! I can't believe that I didn't know this - probably because I'd never got around to looking it up, although it had always confused me (and I still think of the old British Commonwealth as its primary use). I will keep this in mind in the future. When I have time (having got myself way behind through getting bogged down in ships recently!), I'll have a look at those links. I would think that the AFP example mentioned above though, should be enforcing the laws of the Australian Government? And a quick glance at the list suggests that most of the Australian ones are incorrectly linked to this article. I'm thinking maybe making it a DAB would help to solve this problem, Certes? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: I proposed a dab in the previous section but no consensus was found. Certes (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, sorry Certes - I came to it too late, was too focussed on other things, and came straight to this section, Certes. I would have supported it, in light of recent discussion and findings... Any chance of reopening the discussion? I'll try to go back and help fix the incorrect links sometime soon. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not normal to reopen such discussions unless new evidence has come to light or the close was improper, neither of which applies here. I think we now have to live with the burden of checking regularly for new bad links and fixing them as they arrive. Certes (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Certes, I have just worked through the remaining incorrect incoming links - at least 25 to either Australia or Australian Government, and I think 4 or 5 to the Commonwealth of Nations (or British Commonwealth, in the case an historical mention). I also added Australian Government to the Cth disambiguation page. That leaves 17 incoming links - less than half when I started, and presumably a fraction of what it was before (and way fewer than there are links to the Commonwealth Government redirect). I really think this supports the case for having a DAB page, so I'm going to tag a few people from the above discussion. Why leave something here that's going to require continuous cleaning up, unnecessarily? Deus et lex, Zxcvbnm, Narky Blert, Dicklyon, buidhe, Rreagan007, Iffy - I realise that it's not normal to reopen, but I think this reduced number of pertinent links does suggest new information, and seeing that it's the Australian editors who are most affected, perhaps their opinions should hold a bit more weight? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have liked to see the dab at the base name. As well as the links you mention, I fixed about 500 to Commonwealth of Nations, which was the meaning of 75% of Commonwealth's incoming links and has 48% of the pageviews (compared with 5% for the topic currently at the base name). However, my proposal was out!voted and I'm not optimistic about it being revived. For the few RMs which continue beyond a close, the next stage is normally a move review to discuss and evaluate a contested close. However, I don't see any issues with the closing statement. Although I still find the arguments to move slightly stronger than those against, Oppose won 4:3 numerically, which can fairly be summarised as "no consensus". Certes (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. What about "Commonwealth (concept)" as the name of this article? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(concept) was one of the qualifiers I suggested above, but I agree with others that (community) would be better. Certes (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people search or link "Commonwealth", it's more likely that they're looking for a specific commonwealth than the term "commonwealth". Therefore, dab is the correct option to get readers what they are looking for. (t · c) buidhe 07:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When editors create bad links to PTOPICs, the encyclopedia is damaged. There is too much emphasis on saving readers one click at the expense of linking to the wrong article. There is a whole WikiProject (WP:BPAT) dedicated to finding and fixing such links. The fixing part is easy, the finding part is not. Narky Blert (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Certes, Narky Blert and buidhe. Having discussed on the closer's talk page, I will be coming back to this again in the future. I think the article could do with some improvement first, as the current uses of the term are far removed from its origins and I think an argument could be made for its ambiguity as well as applying wp:commonsense here... Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth&oldid=1201070409"