Talk:Commission (document)

Proposed Rename to Commission Warrant

The 18th century form included the words "Hereof nor you nor any of you may fail as you will answer the Contrary at your Peril: And for so doing this shall be your Warrant" so the document is a warrant not a scroll--Petecarney (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And what did a warrant officer's warrant say? Andrew Yong (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen one. The difference lies in who issued it, the Admiralty Board or the Navy Board (which was subordinate). Any comment on the rename proposal? --Petecarney (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Commission Warrant for the reason above and this Petecarney (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither title is correct. Officers hold a Commission, and the document that indicates that is a Commissioning Parchment. Warrant Officers hold a Warrant. The Commission is issued by HM the Warrant is issued nowadays by the Sec State for Defence.

If this article is intended to discuss the document then it should be a Commissioning Parchment, if it's intended to discuss the commission then it should be titled something along the lines of Commission (United Kingdom Armed Forces).

ALR (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Having just read the link from Google I can see why the confusion appears, the source linked to is talking about putting a ship in commission, not the commission that the individual holds.

ALR (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Commissioning Parchment gives only 1 hit on google books, Commissioning scroll only 6. The situation for Commission warrant is confused by lists. I think that although the document is technically a warrant is has almost always been called simply a commission. The Vancouver link at the bottom of the article is a perfect example. Apparently articles are supposed to be named after what is most commonly used rather than what is technically accurate so what would you say to Commission (document)? Petecarney (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've perhaps not been clear in my previous point, I'll try to improve that:

• A commissioned officer in HM Armed Forces holds a commission granted by HM. That commission grants certain rights and privileges and bestows certain responsibilities as documented in Queens Regulations and the Armed Forces Act.
• The document that demonstrates that is the commissioning parchment which states that HM Presents, Constitutes and Appoints you to be an Officer in.... That wording is taken from my own commissioning parchment, that I've just looked at.
• A non commissioned officer does not hold a commission but on reaching a suitable rank is granted a Warrant. From a military command perspective the two are very different beasts.
• Moving away from the individuals, a ship may be placed in commission. In the 17th and 18th Centuries the ships commission was vested in the Commanding Officer, by Warrant, as described in the Google source you've linked to. That CO was at liberty to appoint his own junior officers although the admiralty would also appoint others. I would say that the Vancouver document is an appointment, not a commission. It may be that was at the time of his promotion to Lieutenant, which was the point at which he was commissioned and therefore the commission and the appointment letter are one and the same thing.
• Nowadays the ship remains in commission under the control of the Commander in Chief who appoints a Commanding Officer to operate it on his behalf. CINC also appoints all other officers to support the CO, rather than the CO identifying them himself.

In terms of naming the article, the commission is not the document, the document merely evidences the commission. It would be useful to find secondary sources that talk about commissioning, rather than trying to piece together an article from primary sources. Given that, I would probably prefer the second of the two suggestions I made above as that allows us to discuss the two types of commission; individual and unit. Warrant is discussed in the Warrant Officer article.

ALR (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is the point in question. I disagree with the statement "the commission is not the document, the document merely evidences the commission". In historical usage the single word commission is used for both the physical document and the abstract concept. It's easy to find good examples: "To Mr. Samuel I am indebted for securing my journals and commission" [1] and "see the commission here enclosed", "which Commission I have lost or mislaid" [2]. These clearly refer to physical things.
I wondered whether "Commission Certificate" might be appropriate but from from this forum discussion. "An officer's commission is known as just that. Their commission; it's not known as a certificate, that has overtures of swimming awards and all that.". "Commissioning parchment" and "Commissioning scroll" appear to be modern coinages chosen to avoid the ambiguity. It would be useful to know how far they go back. Both seem to be currently used in the field eg. [3]. [4].
Certainly Commission Warrant is a faux pas so I'll revert it unless there is a consensus on a different title. Of the two modern versions I marginally prefer parchment to scroll although scroll has more Google hits.
I'll put a note on the Military History project talk page to inform additional editors who may be interested.Petecarney (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling it "scroll" doesn't seem right, somehow - apart from anything else, it implies it literally is a scroll, rather than just a single sheet. Calling it a parchment ditto; I'm sure WWI/WWII commissions weren't anything so expensive! Could we just call it Commission (document) and neatly sidestep all this? Shimgray | talk | 11:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

United Kingdom (last sentence)

If Her Majesty has lost her pen.

I thought about deleting that portion of the sentence because it is disrespectful. It would be more helpful to readers to rewrite the sentence and include a link to WP: Autopen. Any ideas? Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Prince Philip is now the Lord High Admiral; does that mean that he must now sign commissions? 16:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.hamid (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Commission (document). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115080410/http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk:80/server/show/nav.3807 to http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3807

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Commission (document). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081214174136/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3807 to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3807
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.3807

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) 08:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Leonardocognoscenti

User:Leonardocognoscenti made a large number of edits on 5 September 2019 which were problematic and which I have reverted. Among the problems are:

• The new "Origins" section was pure original research.
• The edits were heavily US-centric.
• Commissions are not necessarily issued to citizens. A commonplace example in the United States are notaries public, who are commissioned in most states, but the US Supreme Court has ruled they do not have to be US citizens.
• In several places, the status of employee is conflated with the status of government official or government officer. Large numbers of government officers are volunteers and are therefore not employees. I hold one such office myself. ("Volunteer" is used in the sense of being unpaid, not in the sense of freely consenting to serve as opposed to being drafted.)

Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Lack of International Perspective

I asked ChatGPT which countries have their military officers appointed by commissions in the form of letters patent signed by the head of state or in the head of state's name, and, in addition to the United Kingdom properly, all of them appear to be former British colonies. Specifically, ChatGPT mentioned:

1. Australia, 2. Bangladesh, 3. Canada, 4. Ghana, 5. India, 6. Ireland, 7. New Zealand, 8. Nigeria, 9. Pakistan, 10.Singapore, 11.South Africa. 12.Sri Lanka, 13.The United Kingdom, and 14.The United States.

The article should clarify if there is currently any other country outside the Anglosphere where the head of state issues commissions to military officers. For example, what is the practice in other western European countries like Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, or Sweden? Or in the Latin American republics? Or in the Arab monarchies, Malaysia, Thailand, or Japan? What about Russia and China?

The article should also clarify the legal implications of being commissioned by a head of state as opposed to being hired or even permanently incorporated into an officer corps under a contract or an incorporation term. Is an officer who is commissioned by the king or the president considered to be an officer of the state whereas an officer who is incorporated under contract or an incorporation term is merely a public servant? Or do other countries outside the Anglosphere not make a legal distinction between an officer of the state (or officer of the Crown) and a public servant or public employee?

I do not find the artice sufficiently informative in its present format.187.34.66.227 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)