Talk:Commonwealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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)

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)

@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)