Talk:House of Commons

message: JJ, why did you reverse the order of the paragraphs? Mr. Jones 21:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal of order of paragraphs 

message: Were there actually any other House of Commons than the British, Canadian, and Irish ones?  If so, which?  I note that the Australian lower house was never called this.  Morwen - Talk 14:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: "Unreformed" seems a bit unfair; after all it's the one there is, and being what it is, it seems obvious that it cannot have been reformed. I think these articles should be merged. [unsigned comment]
I agree. The article "British House of Commons" is far more detailed. "House of Commons" should redirect there. If theres anything in this article thats not in the other one then it should be put in and this one deleted. Its just taking up page space and misleading people. [unsigned comment]
*This article is about Houses of Commons in general. It provides clearly identified links to the two national Houses of Commons that exist now, and to the various Houses of Commons that have existed in the past. There are separate articles about each of these institutions. Combining all of the articles into one article would result in an article vastly largely than the recommended size for Wikipedia articles. It is appropriate to branch articles in the way that has been done here. Ground Zero | t 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why's the "Unreformed" House Of Commons so much more detailed an article? 

message: Could we get togetther with the British, Irish and Canadian pages and get an etymology on "Commons" that we all agree with?  Once we have that agreed-up definition, the other pages can defer to this page for the etymology of the phrase.  Personally, I like the Canadian one. -- Fplay 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I again emphasize the Canadian version because it just was on the Main Page, so it is currently at "Featured" quality level. -- Fplay 09:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we have a reliable source for this etymology then please? I have to say I'd always believed the 'commoners' explanation, which contrasts neatly with the 'Lords'; however, I note that the Canadian house is called the Chambre des Communes in French, though this could be a form of folk etymology. regardless, a Wikipedia featured article doesn't count as a reliable source (and Canadian House of Commons seems to have remarkably few references for a FA). Blisco 09:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: for what reason is that photograph of the empty chamber a candidate for speedy deletion?  It was precisely what I was seeking when I searched House of Commons...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.222.42 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo of house of commons 

message: For one thing, it's implicitly contradictory due to the unresolved etymology issue described above (is "Commons" a reference to the "third estate" or to the communities represented in that house?).  For another, this language creates an inaccurate impression: The commons represented commoners, such as members of craft guilds, burghers, and tenants. Other estates included the prelates, nobles, merchants and knights. The British House of Commons was created to serve as the political outlet for this "commons" class, while the elite estates were represented in the House of Lords.  This sounds like the "commons" included guild members, burghers, and tenants, but not merchants and knights.  As I understand it, this is inaccurate on two grounds, because tenants (not being "forty shilling freeholders") were not represented in the House of Commons for much of its history, while merchants and knights are commoners and were represented in that house.  For example, the representatives of the counties in the House of Commons are called "knights of the shire." PubliusFL (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History and naming" section is confusing 

message: Not that the house of commons was ever that house of the common people which it is sometimes supposed to have been. For "commons" means "communes"; and while "communes" have commonly been popular organizations, the term might in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries be applied to any association or confederacy. . . "commune of communes" as the house of commons was called . . . But the "communes" or "communitates" which gave their name to the house of commons, were lawful and orderly, comprehensive, but not democratic associations. They were simply the shires or counties of England, and the full county courts in which the knights of the shires were chosen did not include the "common" people.
From the recent citation I've added to this article. Srnec (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Pollard