Talk:House of Commons

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

Others
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)

Why's the "Unreformed" House Of Commons so much more detailed an article?
"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)

Etymology
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The word commons does not refer to the fact that the House of Commons represents the commoners of England. It refers to the fact that the members were elected from the commons (i.e. common areas) of England. Feudalism was based very much on land holdings. Therefore the House of Peers (Lords) represented those areas of land held by peers. The Commons represented those cities and towns which had been granted their freedom from Royal or baronial control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.29.10 (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedure
Can we get some verbage on Lower House meeting procedure? All those grunts and groans, the function of the Speaker, the way everyone is addressed indirectly, etc. This is a unique procedure and it's inclusion here would inflate the content and interest of this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dick Hyman (talk • contribs).

photo of house of commons
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)

"History and naming" section is confusing
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)

Odd question
Google this, and if anyone knows please give me an answer as to why an MP would repeatedly ask, "To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for [insert today's date]}." Is this some sort of parlimentary way of getting priority to speak? Thanks, from a Yank. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may wish to re-ask this at Question Time, since that's when the statement is usually made. fishhead64 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it's just the traditional way of opening. one of the reasons may be to delay the actual start of the real questions (because MPs are very bad timekeepers), or to allow the PM to 'warm up'. it also stops the first person from asking a supplementary question, though this is less important as the first person is from the government side. ninety:one 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * and it allows the PM to make a statement on a recent event, such as the release of Alan Johnston, or the latest deaths in the Stan or Iraq. or even FTA:

"The reason for asking the Prime Minister about his/her engagements is because, until recently, any member of the Cabinet could answer the posed question, allowing the Prime Minister to avoid answering questions himself, but once someone answers a question, he is obliged to answer follow-up questions (on any topic). The only question that the Prime Minister had to answer personally was his/her list of engagements for the day; hence he/she is traditionally asked this question first, and all subsequent questions are follow-up questions, forcing the Prime Minister to answer the questions himself/herself. Occasionally the first question tabled is on a specific area of policy, but this is rare, as it would allow the Prime Minister to prepare a response in advance; the non-descript question allows some chance of catching him/her out with an unexpected supplementary question."

- Prime Minister's Questions

Quoting Pollard
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)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge House of Commons of the United Kingdom into House of Commons. There is nothing in "House of Commons" that isn't already covered elsewhere and nothing more needs to be there than is already present at "House of Commons (disambiguation)". Per WP:COMMONNAME, the present-day British example is the most frequently referred to, and the Canadian one is the only other one in existence. All the others are either proposed, historical, or were forbears or antecedents to the Westminster parliament, after which the Canadian one was consciously modelled. GPinkerton (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think the UK one is necessarily the one everyone thinks of when using the term "House of Commons" - I imagine that in Canada, the Canadian House of Commons is what the term "House of Commons" refers to, and therefore I think House of Commons should still be a generic article for all Commons's, and keeping the country-specific pages separate. Also, the House of Commons page still has content on it about the history of all Commons's, which wouldn't be appropriate on a disambiguation page.  Seagull123  Φ  13:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: In addition to what Seagull has said, it would be weird to include writing about the Canadian house and other houses in an article specifically about the British one - which would happen if this merger passes. In addition, the House of Commons article itself gives a brief history of Houses of Commons that do not fit in either country's Commons' page and is too long to be included in the disambiguation page. So, I support the status quo- the existence of two pages mentioning country names, one page for Commons in general and brief histories, and one disambiguation page. As for concerns over WP:COMMONNAME, it does not matter here because Google shows the Wiki page for the British one when queried, and people searching internally in Wiki can choose their specific article from the search drop-down list or from the disclaimers above the House of Commons article. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 15:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, I don't think it's likely that the Canadian HoC is the one most people are looking for; Canada is smaller than Britain (demographically) and the Canadian example is a copy of the British one. It's not necessary to have a separate page which is only duplication: the material here can already be found at Canadian House of Commons and British House of Commons, as well as (where relevant) at Westminster system, Politics of the United Kingdom, and Politics of Canada. There's no need to have anything more than a disambiguation page and a hatnote at the tops of the relevant pages. There no history of "all Houses of Commonses" that needs treating of; the history and etymology of the specific examples belongs on the individual pages; Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY and a "House of Commons" in abstract is no different to a lower house. Relevant information belongs there or at bicameralism. GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In which case, you can instead nominate House of Commons for AfD, and then make the term "House of Commons" a redirect to House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 05:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? I've said already it would be better to have House of Commons of the United Kingdom redirect here, as this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – There would be no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC between the British and Canadian House of Commons. Things are set up fine as they are right now. Canuck 89 (Converse with me)  08:00, November 10, 2020 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the dictionary entries quoted below. Most are quite content to reveal that the HoC is the British lower house of parliament. One has to look specifically in the New Oxford American Dictionary and of course The Canadian Oxford Dictionary to find any mention of the Canadian copy. The Westminster Commons in the Mother of Parliaments is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as one would expect.
 * GPinkerton (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries take precedence over encyclopedias now? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What encyclopaedias? GPinkerton (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you, because the scope of encyclopedia articles isn't typically determined by dictionary definitions and certainly not definitions from non-specialized dictionaries. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean like in the American Encyclopaedia Britannica, where the "House of Commons" article nowhere mentions Canada, and you have to find it under "Canadian Parliament"?:
 * GPinkerton (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Titled "House of Commons: British government". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps:
 * GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They choose to use the British Parliament as an example in an article about parliamentary systems generally and consistently make a point to specify that they're talking about the UK House of Commons, just as they would do if they were talking about the US House of Representatives (which is in a separate Wikipedia from House of Representatives). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No they didn't, they wrote articles all about politics and law and international relations and referred to the Westminster lower house a the House of Commons without qualification. There are also dozens of Houses of Representatives, both in the US and without. Of course, if there were really no primary topic, you should find it very easy to find international source referring to the Ottawa lower house as "House of Commons" without further comment. I'll wait. GPinkerton (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and referred to the Westminster lower house a the House of Commons without qualification. In which sentence? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "After a series of reforms in the 19th century, the House of Commons came to be elected via far broader suffrage than it had been during its first several centuries." GPinkerton (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was that sentence before or after their specification that they are speaking about the United Kingdom? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 19th-century United Kingdom, there were two Houses of Commons. This is the Westminster one. But that's only implicit. GPinkerton (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Titled "House of Commons: British government". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps:
 * GPinkerton (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They choose to use the British Parliament as an example in an article about parliamentary systems generally and consistently make a point to specify that they're talking about the UK House of Commons, just as they would do if they were talking about the US House of Representatives (which is in a separate Wikipedia from House of Representatives). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No they didn't, they wrote articles all about politics and law and international relations and referred to the Westminster lower house a the House of Commons without qualification. There are also dozens of Houses of Representatives, both in the US and without. Of course, if there were really no primary topic, you should find it very easy to find international source referring to the Ottawa lower house as "House of Commons" without further comment. I'll wait. GPinkerton (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and referred to the Westminster lower house a the House of Commons without qualification. In which sentence? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "After a series of reforms in the 19th century, the House of Commons came to be elected via far broader suffrage than it had been during its first several centuries." GPinkerton (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Was that sentence before or after their specification that they are speaking about the United Kingdom? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 19th-century United Kingdom, there were two Houses of Commons. This is the Westminster one. But that's only implicit. GPinkerton (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the 19th-century United Kingdom, there were two Houses of Commons. This is the Westminster one. But that's only implicit. GPinkerton (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)