Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation/Archive 2

Suggestions for improvements
Since I am the one who initially put 1962 as the date of France's most recent significant territorial modification (and who thus involuntarily triggered this whole debate), I find myself obliged to respond to the objections that were raised above. I honestly don't know much about the status of former Portuguese and Spanish colonies, and therefore cannot evaluate the merits of the aforementioned assertions. However, I do have a somewhat good knowledge of French history, and therefore wish to explain the reasons that led me to consider the loss of Algeria as a territorial modification of France:
 * Firstly, Algeria's situation was totally unique among France's former overseas possessions. Unlike other North African possessions such as Morocco or Tunisia, it wasn't a protectorate. Unlike sub-Saharan possessions such as French West Africa, it wasn't a colony. From a legal point of view, Algeria was considered an integral part of French territory. The French Constitution of 1848 considered it as such, and so did every single French government until independence was achieved in 1962. Even a Socialist politician such as François Mitterrand used to state in the 1950s that "L'Algérie, c'est la France" (i.e. "Algeria is France"). I am underlining the fact that Mitterrand was a Socialist in order to show that even though he was far from being a right-wing sympathizer of the Organisation de l'armée secrète, he still considered Algeria to be a part of France.
 * Secondly, Algeria being considered an integral part of France was not just the result of a "paper resolution" (I am quoting Inge). From a territorial point of view, Algeria was organized into départements, just like the rest of metropolitan France. For this reason, Algeria was administered by the Ministry of Interior (not the Ministry of Colonies or the Ministry of Foreign Affaris), and was able to send deputies to the French Parliament. Again, this situation is totally unique among France's former overseas possessions.
 * Lastly, Algeria contained a very large French population. Indigenous Jews were given full French citizenship with the Cremieux decree. Indigenous Muslims were also able to receive French nationality as long as they abandoned their Muslim personal status (which the overwhelming majority of them refused to do). Algeria's independence in 1962 caused a massive population transfer and deeply affected French society, and that is precisely what significant territorial modifications do. To this day, French people born in pre-1962 Algeria have the numbers of their former Algerian départements written in their INSEE code. People born in other French colonies use the number 99, which is used for anyone born outside of France. Again, this reflects the totally unique situation of French Algeria.

I also wish to highlight the fact that I am neither French nor Algerian, and therefore I am not including Algeria for any ideological/nationalistic/propagandic purposes. My sole aim is to improve the article's quality, and I honestly believe that 1962 is a very significant date in the formation of modern France (which is precisely what the article deals with). However, I have noticed that the majority of editors on this talk page do not share the same opinion as me. Since my aim has never been to impose my point of view (Wikipedia is all about consensus-building, remember!), I have come up with a compromise solution:

I would like to know what other users think of my proposal. As for my suggestions for improving the article (which is the subject of this section), here are a few ideas that I have come up with:
 * I think an objective and uncontroversial definition of the word "country" has to be found. Someone has included Taiwan in the list, which in my opinion is unacceptable given this article's topic. Again, I wish to stress out the fact that I am neither Chinese nor Taiwanese, and therefore I am not a politically motivated editor. I simply think that including Taiwan in a list of countries by formation dates is just incoherent: Taiwan has yet to achieve independence (even the most ardent Taiwanese nationalist recognizes the fact that Taiwan is not an independent country yet), so what sense does it make to include it in a list of fully formed countries which have all already achieved statehood and independence (putting 1912 as a date for Taiwan's independence as the article currently does is simply ridiculous)? On the other hand, including Taiwan as a separate entry in a list of countries by GDP would be totally justified for two reasons: 1°) unlike Monaco, for instance, whose GDP is generally counted as part of France's GDP, Taiwan's GDP is almost never aggregated with China's (omitting Taiwan would therefore mean omitting one of Asia's major economic powers, and thus disserving the article); 2°) moreover, a country's political status has little relevance in a GDP-based list, so the fact that Taiwan has yet to achieve independence should not prevent it from being included in such a list. Therefore, I think that a small sentence stating the meaning of the word country should be added in the Definitions section. Personally, I would opt for the following definition, which has the advantage of being both objective and uncontroversial: Country: political entity with general international recognition, i.e. the 192 United Nations member states plus the Vatican City (all other political entities are excluded from the article).


 * I agree with your proposal, and this should be stated at the beginning of the article. Present article is also depecting a static present political situation, and new "countries" might appear in the meantime, as we have actually seen since Wikipedia was born. This should be noted as well in order to avoid any unnecessary banal nationalism. --Toniher (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the Date of most recent independence column should be renamed Date(s) of acquisition of sovereignty. The word sovereignty is broader than the word independence, which is only relevant for countries that were former colonies. By using the word sovereignty instead of independence the article would be able to accomodate a variety of situations: not all countries were former colonies/dependencies which had to obtain formal independence from another country; however, almost all countries had to acquire their sovereignty at one point by one way or another (i.e. by expelling military invaders, by ceasing to be part of a former federation, etc...). Morever, the inclusion of the plural (s) in the word Date(s) is important, since it highlights the fact that many countries did not acquire their sovereignty in a single year but in a gradual way. For instance, a country like Egypt first obtained nominal independence from the UK (step 1), then full sovereignty over its territory following the departure of the last British colonial troops in the Suez Canal zone (step 2), and finally became the current country following the dissolution of the United Arab Republic (step 3). Another example would be that of former British colonies, many of which became Commonwealth realms following their independence from the UK (step 1), then later adopted a republican form of government and ended their personal union with the UK (step 2 toward the acquisition of full sovereignty).
 * As a result of this, my final suggestion would be to add a Previous situation subcolumn under the Acquisition of sovereignty column. I have already started doing this for a couple of countries in my sandbox (click here if you wish to see what I have done), and I think it greatly improves the article's overall quality since it clearly shows to the reader that formation processes vary widely from one country to another.

I look forward to reading other editors' comments regarding my suggestions, and apologize for the length of this section (I really should make it shorter next time!). BomBom (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I confess I haven't studied your suggestions in depth:) but I find them to be good. Espeshially the ones that are not on the colony problem. I am still weary of treating colonies differently. By colonies I don't mean the strickt politically implemented status, but more in the broader definition used in history and political sciences. In that sense Algeria was a colony even though France made some administrative provisions to the contrary. So I believe we should treat all colonies the same even though there might be some arguments for giving an exeption to France/Algeria. Then again I'm sure there are some arguments for giving more exeptions. The biggest problem I have is when some user(s) insist on leaving out German occupation of the colonial power because some colony remained unoccupied. Two countries equally occupied but only one is listed as occupied because the other had some colony in the Carribean. However your example above is good enough for me as a compromise. Like I said I liked the examples in your sandbox more.Inge (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BomBom, I personally support your proposals, since I think they are conscious and neat, and readers can further explore the subject from within the table links. --Toniher (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the Algeria debate. I have listed my opposition to your narrow definition of statehood that justifies the rejection of Taiwan from this list below.  Taiwan is a real state with sovereign control over a significant territory, membership in many major international organizations, and unofficial relations with most major states.


 * I agree with you that Date(s) of acquisition of sovereignty is a good name for that column. I'm not sure that "previous situation" merits a seperate column, but including that information in the article would improve it. - Atarr (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
As of February 18th 2008, Kosovo became an independent country in Europe. Shouldn't it be added to this list?

--Jakewater (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Pursuant to the above discussion, I have removed Kosovo and Taiwan. Both currently do not meet the criteria for inclusion in this article. Taiwan has yet to proclaim formal independence as a separate entity, and the Republic of China that currently administers Taiwan lacks general international recognition. As for Kosovo, its "independence" hasn't been recognized by a single country in the world. It is a merely self-proclaimed independence, similar to that of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or that of Somaliland, neither of which are listed in the article, and neither of which should be included. BomBom (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Australia has recognised the independence of Kosovo. I heard the foreign minister announce it in parliament. i thought an encyclopedia was supposed to be factual, not politically motivated. the denial of Taiwan and Kosovo is pandering to the arrogance of China and Serbia respectively.218.185.32.4 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Taiwan absolutely belongs on this list. It is a nation in every sense except for U.N. recognition and widespread offical diplomatic relations.  The only reason for this is the PRC's One China policy and the diplomatic pressure it applies on other nations.  Nations have to pick between relations with Taiwan and relations with China, and understandably, most pick China.  You noted how few nations officially recognize the RoC, but the far more significant list for our purposes is the many nations that retain unofficial relationships with Taiwan.


 * Additionally, the RoC is a member of many significant international organizations, such as the WTO. And of course, the RoC is a former member of the U.N., until it was kicked out due to PRC diplomatic efforts in 1971.  Would you have suggested that South Africa would not have belonged on this list between 1974 and 1994?  It was a pariah state, to be sure, but a state none the less.


 * I think I've made my point clear. Removing the RoC from this list is a mistake.  Kosovo is another matter - its status as a stable, independent nation is still in doubt.  That said, it seems on the path to widespread international recognition, and it already has de facto self rule.  I am fine with its inclusion. - Atarr (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Atarr, regardless of what you and I think of this issue, I want to just point to the fact that what you did was wrong form a deontological point of view. You don't just go and change definitions like you did without consulting anybody, especially in a controversial article such as this one. Your suggestions for improving and/or modifying the article (especially when it comes to such a vital issue such as the definition of the term "country" itself) should first be expressed on the article's talk page; you should then wait for other users' comments before proceeding with your edit (personally, this is what I have always done each time I had a suggestion). I know Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, but this boldness must not lead you to suddenly modify the very meaning of the concept upon which a whole article is based. As for the definition you have opted for, I believe it is extremely narrow. Defining a country as "an independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these" misses one extremely vital point: international recognition. Independence without general international recognition means nothing. If we were to keep your definition, then there would be no reason whatsoever not to include in the article other political entities such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia or Northern Cyprus: all are de facto independent territories with a government, population and sovereignty over these. If we include them, it is almost certain that a Georgian or Greek Cypriot nationalist will try to delete these entries claiming that the article is politically motivated. Therefore, I believe including international recognition in the definition of the term "country" is essential. And in the 21st century, international recognition means one simple thing: UN membership (which is the case of 192 countries) or permanent observer status (which is the case of the Holy See, which has gained all the rights of full membership except voting). Honestly, I fail to see how such a definition could be seen as "politically motivated" (I am quoting 218.185.32.4). I am not "pandering to the arrogance of China and Serbia". In fact, I am neither European nor Asian, so I really could't care less about China, Taiwa, Serbia or Kosovo. What I do care about though, is making Wikipedia have informative and objective articles, and I believe that my definition is the most useful one and also the least controversial. As for your assertion that Taiwan has unofficial relationships with many nations, I would like to remind you that more than 100 countries recognize the State of Palestine, and yet it is not included in the article and it shouldn't be. I have no problem whatsoever with the inclusion of Taiwan, Kosovo or Palestine ONCE they attain full independence and UN membership. This is a list of countries by FORMATION dates, i.e. countries that are fully formed and have achieved statehood, independence and gained international recognition and UN membership. It is not a simple list of countries. Wikipedia already has such a list, and both Taiwan and Kosovo (as well as numerous other political entities) are included in it. If you consider Taiwan or Palestine to already be fully formed and independent countries worthy of inclusion in this article, then how do you explain the ongoing debate about Taiwan independence or Palestinian statehood? As for Kosovo, I understand why many enthusiastic and excited editors are rushing to include it right now in a lot of country-related articles. 218.185.32.4 says Kosovo should be included because "an encyclopedia was supposed to be factual". In fact, that is precisely why Kosovo shouldn't be included. A factual encyclopedia shouldn't include in a list of fully formed countries a territory that has unilaterally declared independence two days after this independence was declared, especially if such a declaration is hotly contested and only recognized by 8 countries. If in a few months there is consensus among the international community that Kosovo's independence should be recognized, then of course it should be included in this article. Wikipedia isn't about making hasty and enthusiastic edits, it is about making useful edits that take into consideration the current state of situations, not a desired or projected state of situations. This is already a hugely controversial article, and almost every date in it is subject to debate. However, there had previously been a sort of consensus about which countries should be included. Currently, even this shaky consensus is being contested. For the sake of the article, can't we at least agree on a definition of the term "country" itself? BomBom (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do my best to address most of your concerns. First, accusing me of being ethically lacking for changing the article is really a stretch.  A definition of "country", I remind you, was entirely absent before you put one in that was consistent with your opinion of what this article should represent.  And you removed Kosovo after a single day.  I don't have any problem with those edits, and now we are having a nice, reasoned discussion of these things.  I changed these edits to be consistent with what other posters on this thread have said, and I still don't regret it.  I believe that leaving the article in a way that is consistent with how it was constructed before this discussion began is a reasonable standard, while we are having this discussion.


 * On the question of this definition of a country - not only is it consistent with the way the article is currently constructed, but I did not come up with it. It was copied verbatim from the country article, under the subsection "state".  I find that when these sorts of controversies are going on, referring to other wikipedia articles on the subject can be a nice way to achieve compromise.


 * At any rate, on to the meat of the subject. I'm not accusing you of being politically motivated; rather, I'm just accusing you of being a bit of a pedant.  Your proposed definition has one great advantage - it is easy to enforce and requires no votes or deep thought on our part (although it will surely lead to lots of edits to re-re-re-re-instate and re-re-re-re-remove Taiwan).  It has one critical disadvantage, however - it fails to reflect reality.  I'm prefectly comfortable with an approach that requires us to make decisions about what merits inclusion here, if this allows us to better reflect the reality of the world.


 * The Republic of China is a country. It is a country that lacks formal diplomatic recognition from many nations, and U.N. membership.  But it is a sovereign nation in every other sense, and that includes all the ways that matter.  I mentioned WTO membership already, and that really should not be taken lightly.  It also has currency that is traded internationally.  Perhaps most telling, nearly every state in the world will stamp a Republic of China passport (PRC excepted, of course).  Try telling a customs official sometime that the RoC is not a real country.


 * You mention possible contries like (I'll expand on your list) Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, and South Ossetia. As far as I know, none of these meet the criteria that I listed in the previous paragraph.  All are recognized by zero countries, except for Northern Cyprus which is recognized by one (and is arguably a puppet state).  Simply put, their sovereignty is widely unrecognized.  Taiwan, on the other hand, has sovereignty which may be only de jure narrowly recognized, but is de facto widely recognized. Potential states like Western Sahara or the Palestinian authority simply lack sovereignty.


 * And as I said in my previous post on this thread, using U.N. status as the sole arbiter of country status forces us to some (IMHO) absurd conclusions about the existance of states. To wit:
 * Did South Africa wink out of existance in 1974, replaced by terra incognita? Did it rise out of the sea again in 1994?  Should 1994 be listed as the date which the RSA most recently acquired sovereignty?
 * Did the PRC, a nation that governed fully one fifth of the world's population, not exist from 1949-1971? What changed about the RoC in 1971 that made it disappear?


 * Look, I fully recognize that this approach could lead to controversies and votes. I just think it's better to try to reflect reality, rather than choose a narrow definition that denies it.


 * Kosovo is much more of a border case - its status is still a current event and in flux. I'm fine with tabling that one for the time being and waiting for wider recognition as well as establishment of more institutions (border control and customs relations, currency exchange, membership in various organizations, stable government, et cetera). - Atarr (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have come up with a compromise solution. I agree that my definition of the term "country" may be considered too narrow by some. Therefore, I think it's good to keep your definition while adding to it the "international recognition" dimension. Regarding Kosovo, I personally think it's better not to include it in the regular table but mention it in the lead section. However, I'm almost sure there will be daily attempts to reinsert it, so we might as well just leave it as it is. As for Taiwan, what do you think of this? Best regards. BomBom (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[Remove Indent] I believe that the PRC considers itself to be a successor state to the ROC, and the ROC may in turn consider itself to be a successor to the Chinese Empire. Our treatment of successor states in the table right now is a little inconsistent - Spain is listed as independent in 1814 despite having been a kingdom, republic, Fascist republic and kingdom again in in the intervening time. Should we link the foundation of the country of 'China' to the PRC, ROC or Empire?

Equally while I believe that currently the ROC doesn't actively claim mainland China, linking it to an earlier nation of Taiwam seems inappropriate. Possibly this may become appropriate if and when Taiwan receives independence as Taiwan - i.e. renounces its claims on the Chinese mainland (and ideally is recognised by the PRC).

My preferred solution would be to have a 'China' section with three parts, China (the country), with subsection for the PRC and ROC. I'd also drop the international recognition into a footnote to maintain clarity and consistency. --Neo (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Neil, you bring up an excellent point that we need to be careful, and consistent, in the way we handle successions of governments. I think it would be a very, very bad idea for us to try to make this list reflect changes of government due entirely to internal conflicts.  Spain is a good example of this - we should definitely leave the date at 1814, and we should attempt to apply this standard when applicable to other nations.  Internal changeover of control/sovereignty does not constitute a break in sovereignty of the nation as a whole.


 * China may be a special case, though, because the previous government still exists and is the (de facto) sovereign power over a nontrivial area. For this reason I think we should list the PRC as acquiring sovereignty as of 1949.


 * BomBom, your compromise is reasonable in principle. I'm not sure I like the idea of grouping Taiwan into a China subsection -  the entire basis of my argument, after all, is that Taiwan is a real sovereign state in practice, and with that in mind, their claim to represent all of China (and Mongolia, for that matter), and the PRC's claim to Taiwan, are both not really relevant.


 * Also, Retrocession Day was not really the establishment of any sort of sovereignty. It was when Taiwan was handed from one power (Japan) to another (Mainland China).  It does not belong anywhere on this list.


 * I understand your objection with the January 1, 1912 date, though. If, as I say, Taiwan's claim to Mainland China is irrelevant, then the only significance of 1912 is that that is when they acquired sovereignty over Taiwan.  (And even that is insignificant, because they lost it and got it back after that.)  Maybe the proper date would be December 7, 1949.  I think that if we are putting Taiwan under its own heading (i.e. nullifying its claim to represent China and simply noting its de facto status as the government of Taiwan) then its dates are 1662, 1949, and 1955, with no split cells needed.  I agree with Neil that the details of the RoC's international status, while certainly relevant, should be in a footnote. - Atarr (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a stab at some edits. Please comment.  I didn't do anything with Kosovo. - Atarr (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the China solution suggested by BomBom (with the use of footnotes for the more explanatory parts). I feel Taiwan is a special case as it has been a fully recognised state. When it comes to a countrydefinition I support using the general definition as a base. However we have to include some provisions to avoid conflicts over inclution as outlined above. My suggestion: "Country: An independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these; see also country. For the purpose of this list the definition is taken to include only countries with general international recognition, i.e. the 192 United Nations member states plus the Vatican City". In my view this won't conflict with the inclution of Taiwan as long as it is done according to BamBam's suggestion.Inge (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous double standards
Both France and Russia are given traditional dates in the 9th century, yet both of them have experienced extremely unstable overthrows of states. On the other hand, the UK only gets a date of 1707, whereas its government has been remarkably stable and continuous from the Kingdom of England in the early Middle Ages. Alternatively, how about when Britain (including what are now England, Wales, and part of Scotland) was officially recognised as independent by the Roman Empire in 410? Surely that's a pretty good date? TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Stability has nothing to do with that column of the list. If a country was founded 1000 years ago, it doesn't matter if it's gone through 20 governments and a half-dozen occupations since then.  It only matters for the purpose of the date of sovereignty, the second column.


 * At any rate, the UK has now been moved back to an agreed-upon mideval date. This was the subject of considerable recent discussion. (Several Brits were arguing for 1707, I might add.  Your accusations of bias are unfounded.)  Roman times would be inappropriate, as there was no united sovereign political entity ruling Britain from Britain at that time. - Atarr (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa. You seriously need to learn about Carausius, Emperor of Britain, before making statements like that, Atarr. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I said Britain, not Britannia. Rome never ruled Scotland. - Atarr (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be fair Rome did conquer all of Great Britain at one point, but they couldn't control the population so the retreated until more forces could be mustered.... then Emperor Hadrian decided that empire didn't need to expand any more so he had the troops fortify their locations to what we know today as England and some of Wales. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * During Carausius's day the northern boundary was the Antonine Wall. Approximately half of modern Scotland was therefore under his rule, and all of the most populous parts. Furthermore, it's a bit of a myth to say that the Romans never conquered Scotland, because they had treaty arrangements with the various tribes there, especially those nearer the walls, and those tribes often came to the Roman authorities to settle internal disputes. It is, therefore, fair to say that Carausius controlled most of Britain. TharkunColl (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sortable columns
Is it possible to make this table sortable by date the same way the list of countries by population density is sortable by population, area and density? Very good article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.170.66.180 (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, although only the second column would have much meaning, since the others have lots of empty entries (by design), and it would require some editing so that it would sort by year, then month, then day, rather than by month, then day, then year. - Atarr (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No! I strongly oppose this. When I proposed the layout that is currently used in this table, I clearly explained why an alphabetic list is preferable to a sortable one. If we allow sorting by date, then we would revert to the previous situation where people were constantly editing the article so as to make their country appear as one of the oldest in the world. An article that classifies countries by chronological order would inevitably tempt people to add fantasy dates so as to make their countries rise further up the list. BomBom (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Umh the sorting wouldn't effect anybody else, only that particular user will have the info sorted the way they want, not only that it will revert back to the original order the next time they return. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but I think BB is right that this would tempt some users to edit their nation "up" the sorted list. I don't think Egypt and San Marino would hold onto their "titles" as oldest nations in their respective columns for very long.  Well, maybe Egypt would.  Tough to argue that one.


 * At any rate, it's a sizable technical/editing challenge to edit the list to work properly as a sortable table, with all the split cells staying together and so forth. Unless someone is willing to put in a lot of effort, this is all theoretical. - Atarr (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Potentially misleading
The title of this article has the potential to be very misleading. 'Formation date' to me gives the idea that the age of a country should be dated from the first mention. Unfortunately, it would be totally misleading to suggest, for example, that the United Kingdom was over a thousand years old! Even if a single 'government' had ruled the whole of Great Britain over 1000 years ago (which I dispute), the united country that now fills the island is not the same political entity. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about creating another row for the 1st historical union and rename Statehood to modern Statehood. This should help clarify the issue. This would make 1707 the correct date for the creation of the modern nation we now know as the United Kingdom, it would at least put the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 as the correct date of modern statehood & make France the creation of the 1st Republic. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this solves anything. In many cases it simply adds another layer of ambiguity, and one more thing to debate about.  I don't think it brings enough new information to the list to merit inclusion.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to see some examples for a wide range of nations.


 * In answer to the original question posed - you're making assumptions about what "formation date" means. It's admittedly an ambiguous phrase.  This is precisely why three more specific definitions are given at the outset of the article.  I think it's hard to argue that the article is misleading when it tells you exactly what the significance of each column on the list is. - Atarr (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. By way of example, the article says "Date of acquisition of sovereignty : Date at which country obtained its current and uninterrupted de facto sovereignty within a similar area to its present-day borders" - so Germany should be recorded as acquiring sovereignty at the time of reunification as there was a major change in size of the country with that act? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, good point. I added that phrase in order to try to explain the solution we came to for the representation of Taiwan (i.e. the Republic of China) on this list.  But adding it does raise issues about the representation of both Germany and the United States, and probably some other nations.  Maybe it should be taken out again. - Atarr (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I look at it, Germany is already represented as acquiring its current sovereignty in 1991. This is debatable, as I believe the German government is continuous from West Germany.  At the very least, we should have a split cell representation there.
 * Still, this leaves the issue of the USA; perhaps the phrase "within a similar area to its present-day borders" should be adjusted. - Atarr (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my view is that a change in the geographical size of a country is not particularly important - to me, the important issue is whether there is a continuation of basically the same political entity or not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think Taiwan is the special case here, and the double-footnotes explaining its current display should address why it is an exception. - Atarr (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about states, then basically we have a whole different list. The modern British state is a continuation of the English state, which was itself a continuation of the Kingdom of Wessex, founded in 495. Though originally this only covered a small area, it gradually expanded, absorbing hitherto separate kingdoms etc., changing its name a few times, until eventually it became the modern UK, with absolute continuity of administrators, institutions, and all the apparatus that makes up a state. TharkunColl (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this is an issue that we really want to avoid. If we open the discussion to what was the predecessor state to the current one, then many states on this list can be moved waaaay back.  For instance, China now arguably gets some semi-mythical date like 2852 BCE.  Heck, someone will probably make the argument that Iraq dates back to Sumeria and/or Hungary dates back to Atilla.  These are arguments I'd really like to avoid.


 * I think we do ourselves a bit of a disservice by focusing on the UK. The UK has a long, unique history.  It has gone almost 1000 years since the last time it was conquered by a foreign power.  Legitimate dates that could be used for one or the other of the UK dates include:
 * 43 - establishment of Roman Britannia
 * 495 - kingdom of Wessex
 * 937 - Athelstan
 * 1066 - last time it was conquered by a foreign power
 * 1155 - Laudabiliter gives claim over Ireland
 * 1214 or a bit earlier - During the reign of John of England when British possessions passed the importance of continental possessions for the last time.
 * 1603 - Union of the Crowns
 * 1688/1689 - Glorious revolution and the bill of rights
 * 1707 - Acts of Union
 * 1800 - still more acts of Union
 * 1921 - the name of the country changes again
 * 1997 - devolution of Welsh and Scottish parliaments... because hey, if putting them together in 1707 is so important, then why not splitting them apart?


 * That list is comically long, of course, but my point is that I can make a reasonable argument for all of them, and probably several more.


 * In conclusion, let's agree on definitions that make sense for most nations in the world, and then try to pick a date for the UK that fits in those categories. We will always be able to argue about how to classify the UK. - Atarr (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some serious points - Firstly,whenever you may believe a unified political entity first appeared across the whole of Great Britain, the current political entity called the united kingdom is no where near a 1000 years old! Secondly, 1066 'last time it was conquored by a foreign power' in this case it only represents England - Scotland was not conquored in 1066! Thirdly, The 'Union of the Crowns' was one person taking two crowns - not two crowns being united into one; (that hapopened in 1707 when the two kingdoms of Scotland and England were united.) Fourthly, 1997 is not 'splitting apart', just devolution. 1707 was significant because it was a marriage of two countries - 1997 was not the divorce...just separate bedrooms in the same house! :) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the other entries on this list and you'll find that they have chosen a date that represents the first time that (approximate) area was united under a single government - it has nothing do do with continuity of statehood. And that's why Athelstan is correct here (though I still think a good case could be made for Carausius). TharkunColl (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being 'picky' but Britain wasn't 'united under a single government' under Athelstan. He didn't annex the Kingdoms of the Scots and Picts, (as he did with the Kingdom of Northumbria) and their respective Kings continued to rule in those kingdoms - the kings may have acknowleged 'overlordship' but that is not the same as a 'united government'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well again, just look at the other entries on the list and you'll see exactly the same sort of thing. Athelstan ruled Britain. His rule was not as direct in some areas as others (even within England), but that is the nature of medieval monarchy. He ruled Britain, and adopted a title to reflect this fact. TharkunColl (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to argue for all of those particular dates, just the notion that the UK is always going to be a thorny subject and we shouldn't base our definitions on a hope of "settling" the UK debate. Just for the sake of argument, though, I'll respond to one of your points.  Yes, the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is certainly not 942 years old.  But it's not 301 years old, either - it's about 87 years old.  And in fact Elizabeth's title didn't switch from "...Ireland..." to "...Northern Ireland..." until 1953.  Moreover, why is the name "United Kingdom" especially significant?  (what's in a name? a rose...) If we're tracing the establishment of the institutions of modern government, then 1707 is a major step, but so are many others.  The basic institutions of the British monarchy can arguably be traced back to 1066, or at least to 1215.


 * Again, I'm not really tied to any of these arguments. I'm just trying to point out the gradual evolution and interplay of multiple kingdoms that led to the modern UK does not present us with one (or two) obvious choice(s). - Atarr (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. You say "The basic institutions of the British monarchy can arguably be traced back to 1066, or at least to 1215." True, but equally capable of being traced to significant dates in Scottish history! The united 'British' kingdom only started in 1707 - prior to that the crowns of Scotland and England were separate (though jointly held after 1603).
 * I don't disagree that things evolved - let's just be careful how this is presented: the name 'United' Kingdom is significant in the same way 'United' States of America is significant - separate parts came together to make something greater than any one part. In the case of the USA, states came together. In the case of the UK, countries came together. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true though. The modern British state is descended from the English state. The old Scottish state was simply extinguished. If anyone doubts this, take a look at this list of state functionaries I compiled as part of another discussion some time ago. A state is made up of functionaries, and the following are examples of English functionaries whose jurisdiction was England before 1 May 1707, and Great Britain thereafter:


 * Henry Boyle, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1701-1708 (office created 1316).
 * Charles Spencer, Southern Secretary 1706-1710 (office created 1660, renamed Home Secretary 1782).
 * Robert Harley, Northern Secretary 1704-1708 (office created 1660, renamed Foreign Secretary 1782).
 * William Cowper, Lord Chancellor (acting) 1705-1708 (office created 1068).
 * Thomas Herbet, Lord President of the Council 1702-1708 (office created 1530).
 * John Holles, Lord Privy Seal 1705-1711 (office created 1307).
 * John Churchill, Master-General of Ordnance 1702-1712 (office created 1544).
 * Thomas Grey, President of the Board of Trade 1705-1711 (office created 1672).
 * Sidney Godolphin, First Lord of the Treasury 1702-1710 (office created 1126 as Lord High Treasurer, and effectively became that of Prime Minister 1721).

There are many, many other examples, and I have only concentrated on the really important offices. In all cases these were founded in England and extended their jurisdiction to the whole of Britain in 1707. A state consists of officers such as these, performing their functions, and there is not a single example of an English officer vacating his post in 1707, or the post itself being abolished. Conversely, it goes without saying that no Scottish governmental office, or officer, saw his jurisdiction expand to include the whole of Britain. Indeed most found themselves pensioned off (i.e. bribed). One could also add other things such as the fact that the English crown jewells became the British ones, the English parliament became the British one, the English capital city became the British one, English currency was introduced to Scotland and the Scottish currency abolished, the monarchs took their numbers from the English ones... the list could go on forever. TharkunColl (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make some interesting points, and you are correct that although the Treaty of Union sets out that both parliaments were abolished and replaced with the new 'united' parliament, in practice the English parliament and government continued and added on Scotland. However, though it may look loke a 'takeover', it was legally a 'merger'. FYI, when I married my wife changed her surname to mine - that does not mean that 'we' are descended from 'me' any more than 'we' are descended from 'her'! (By the way, British monarchs now use the next available number based on previous English or Scottish monarchs - of course the royal family may avoid names like Robert or David to ensure that this does not become a controversial policy in england at some future point!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point about marriage is correct, which is why it's not at all a useful analogy. A much better one would be a corporate merger of a huge company with a small one. And a hostile one at that (i.e. the "shareholders" of the small, bankrupt company were bullied and bribed to vote for merger). Legally it was a merger, certainly - and it is also crystal clear that this was just a sop to Scottish sensibilities. As you say, it may indeed look like a takeover, because that's precisely what it was. Your point about the numbering of monarchs is also true - the present regulation was only brought in in the 1950s as a further sop to Scottish sensibilities when some objected to Elizabeth "II". And you will no doubt be proved correct to say that there will never be a David, Robert, etc. (let alone a Kenneth, MacBeth, Constantine, Margaret, etc.). TharkunColl (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the UK we should at least settle for one of the dates given in the article United Kingdom's infobox. That article is most likely based on a larger consensus and with the participation of more editors: Someone has done the work for us so we don't have to invent the wheel again. 1707 is IMO the date and the coloumn will of course state that the UK was formed by uniting the predecessor countries. Giving a mediæval date for the UK would be wrong.Inge (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the second column 1707 is fine, and indeed is already there. That's because the second column deals with continuity of statehood, which is why that date is given in the the UK infobox in its article The first column, on the other hand, deals with the first time that area come under a single ruler, and has nothing to do with continuity of statehood. Compare it with all the other countries in the list and you'll see what this means. TharkunColl (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Italy
Between 225 and 192 BC the Roman Republic, in a series of campaigns, conquered Cisalpine Gaul (the area we today know as Northern Italy) thus creating a state almost identical in extent to modern Italy (except that it also controlled Corsica). This state, of course, later expanded still further and became the Roman Empire.

Or, if that is deemed unacceptable (though I can't see why), in AD 476, after deposing the last Western Roman Emperor, the Germanic leader Odoacer assumed the title King of Italy and ruled a state that likewise corresponded almost exactly with the boundaries of modern Italy (though probably with neither Sardinia or Corsica, and with slightly more territory down the east coast of the Adriatic but not until after AD 480). TharkunColl (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think 476 (or perhaps 477, after the conquest of Sicily) makes sense. The title "King of Italy" seems like a good sign that this is a kingdom that modern Italy can trace back to in some way.  I think linking to Roman times is a bit of a stretch, although the borders of the republic at the beginning of the second Punic war are close enough.  Admittedly, this makes for a pretty fine distinction when compared to, say, Egypt, but I think it's a line I'm willing to walk.

While we're on the subject of mideval european kingdoms that draw a link to modern republics, should we move Germany's date to 919, when Henry took the title? Personally, I don't think the earlier Eastern Franks count... - Atarr (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure about that one. If we're using Verdun for France, why not Germany? I agree though that it has to be some time around then, as a German kingdom certainly existed. TharkunColl (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would go with July 3, 987 for France, with the founding of the Capetian Dynasty, which lasted all the way to 1789. I just don't think the Frankish rulers were particularly French or German in character. - Atarr (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed - they spoke Frankish, which is the ancestor of neither French nor German, but rather Dutch. So perhaps we should only list polities that have some sort of linguistic/ethnic connection with their modern counterparts. Therefore Egypt has no claim to any sort of continuity with the kingdom of the pharaohs, in the same way that we don't give the Hittite Empire for Turkey even though it ruled Anatolia, or Babylonia for Iraq even though it ruled Mesopotamia. TharkunColl (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'd like to say that I am really surprised by the amount of discussion that has taken place on this talk page in the past few days. It seems that people are suddenly starting to get interested in this article! Anyway, I would like to respond to a few comments that were made above. I think it is essential to mention in the Definitions section that the country must have been continually existent since its date of statehood, otherwise we will end up having absurd (or, at least, irrelevant) dates. The suggestion that was made above to have a medieval date for Italy is simply preposterous.


 * For sure, the ancient province of Italia covered approximately the same area as modern Italy, and it undoubtedly shares some cultural links with it. However, Italy as a unified political entity ceased to exist for nearly 14 centuries, and this is simply too long a period of time to ignore. The modern Italian state traces its emergence to the mid-19th century. The same applies to, say, Israel. I had initially put 1948 as the date of Israel's statehood (and I don't think anyone would disagree with that), yet I just saw that someone replaced it with 1006 BCE. Again, this is simply ridiculous. For sure, ancient Jewish kingdoms covered some of the area that Israel covers today, and they certainly share cultural links with it. However, one cannot ignore the fact that not a single Jewish state existed between the 2nd century AD and the 20th century. One cannot simply omit those 19 centuries and pretend that they never existed. If Italy or ancient Israel had ceased to exist as a unified political entity for a few decades or even a few centuries, one could still defend the idea of a political continuity. However, we're talking about nearly two millenia here!! Moreover, unlike Italy, Israel's supposed "statehood" in 1006 BCE is not even a certain historical date; by using it, we are almost verging on Biblical mythology (there is debate about the historicity of David).


 * As for TharkunColl's comment that "Egypt has no claim to any sort of continuity with the kingdom of the pharaohs", it simply reinforces my conviction that people shouldn't be speaking about subjects they know very little about. Egypt's case was already longly discussed on this talk page. I know that many people tend to assume that modern Egypt has nothing to do with ancient Egypt simply because Egyptians no longer practice the same religion and no longer use hieroglyphs. However, this is an ignorant and extremely simplistic impression. Modern Egypt does indeed share political continuity with the kingdom of the pharaohs. Unlike Greece, Italy or Israel, for instance, it has always existed as a roughly unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders ever since it was unified in 3100 BC (what merely changed over the centuries was Egypt's political status and independence, and this is clearly reflected in the other columns). Moreover, ancient Egypt also undoubtedly shares "linguistic/ethnic connection with [its] modern counterpart". For the linguistic connection, see here. For the ethnic connection, see here. Regards. BomBom (talk) 13:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Egypt, however, it seems bizarre that you would not apply the same standards to Italy. Yes, there was a vast stretch of history, over 1000 years, when there was no central Italian state.  Yet in this time, the concept of Italy as a kingdom held constant, and the HRE often included Italy among his titles.  And of course there is a clear cultural and ethnic continuity that doesn't require any explanation.  Why is the length of time important?  The same title, King of Italy, was assumed on both ends, ruling the same area, the same people, speaking the same language.  There was a sense of nostalgia at the time for an era long in the past, and this nostalgia drove the reunification movement.  Why does the length of time matter?


 * As far as Israel, Jews lived there the entire time, from the fall of the ancient kingdom through the classical kingdom, all the way to the modern zionist movement. The spoken and written language of the modern state is the same as the language of the ancient kingdom (astounding, but true).  There is certainly a ethnic link as well, as Jews were regarded as an ethnicity throughout the entire intervening time (eventually fissioning into two ethnicities, but ethnicities none the less).  And it goes without saying that the zionist movement drew a direct link between the nation they were building and the one from two millenia prior.  Again, why does the time span matter? - Atarr (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I forgot to address your questioning of the historicity of David's united kingdom of Israel and Judah. This, I agree, is a reasonable complaint, although there are scholars who believe in the existence of this particular nation based on the archaeological (i.e. non-faith-based) evidence.  Regardless, it is an established historical fact that there was a state of Israel during this period, and that it was conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE.  If you would be more comfortable with some date a century or two later, and you can find a wikilink or reference to support a better consensus around that date, then I would be fine with that. - Atarr (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Romulus Augustus, incidentally, was deposed on September 4, which nicely gives a date for the assumption of power by Odoacer - is this okay? TharkunColl (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely clear that he took the title "King of Italy" on that day. - Atarr (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that particularly important, since he did indeed rule Italy from that day (even if he took the title later)? TharkunColl (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. But if we're trying to be consistent with how we are treating France, Germany, and the UK, I think we should leave out the date (or try to find a reference that refers to Odoacer actually creating the crown of Italy on a specific day). - Atarr (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Aeneid, it is foretold that Aeneas would give rise in Italy to a noble race that would become known to all nations. Since that is indeed what happened, you might as well include that as a date for modern Italy's statehood!!! BomBom (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "This nostalgia drove the reunification movement" / "The zionist movement drew a direct link between the nation they were building and the one from two millenia prior". See my point? If Italy and Israel were continually existent political entities, then what exactly were Italian patriots reunifying and what exact were zionists building? Please bear in mind that this is a list of countries/states, not civilizations. For instance, the Indus Valley Civilization is very old and led to the creation of powerful kingdoms and empires. However, despite the cultural/ethnic/religious continuity, it would be extremely far-fetched to say that the modern Republic of India achieved statehood in the third millenium BC. You say that "it seems bizarre that you would not apply the same standards to Italy" in reference to Egypt. Well, these are two very different cases. On the one hand, you have a country (Egypt) that never really ceased to exist as a centralized unified state. On the other hand, you have countries like Israel and Italy that DISAPPEARED from the map and only re-emerged nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS later. I find it striking that you don't see why such a HUGE time span is significant.


 * The fact that some monarch continued to use the title "King of Italy" doesn't mean anything (the king of Spain still uses the title of King of Jerusalem, yet that doesn't mean that he has any sovereignty over it). The first person to effectively rule the whole of Italy since the 6th century was Victor Emmanuel II. As for Israel, I don't think you can simply erase 2 millenia like that. You say that "Jews lived there the entire time"; you should have said "a few thousand Jews representing a tiny proportion of the worldwide Jewish population lived there the entire time". As for "the spoken and written language of the modern state [being] the same as the language of the ancient kingdom", this is a gross oversimplification. In the 19th century, some linguists RESCUSITATED a language that was no longer spoken outside the liturgical field, precisely because they saw it as a prerequisite for the REBIRTH of a state that no longer existed since the 2nd century AD (and, in fact, their attempts to turn Hebrew into a daily language encountered fierce resistance from within the Jewish community itself). I totally understand that modern Italians and Israelis may relate to these ancient states/kingdoms, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, saying that the modern state of Italy or the modern state of Israel are a direct continuation of these states as if nothing had happened in between is simply preposterous. BomBom (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, both Italy and Israel (and Germany) are re-establishment of states, and the actual institutions of government were clearly broken in between. If the definition for the first column required direct continuity with the previous institutions of government, then you would be right that these dates are inappropriate.  But all that is required is that there be a clear link between the old nation and the new one.  Italy, Germany, and Israel clearly pass this hurdle in my opinion.  By comparison, India has no real link to the Indus valley civilization, just as Iraq has no link to Sumeria/Assyria/Babylonia.  What we have here is a transparent application of a reasonable standard.


 * And really, it's bizarre that you take issue with Italy but not Egypt. Egypt had its own millenia-long break in rule - from Roman conquest until the Fatamid Caliphate moved their capitol to Cairo.  And of course there was a 400+ year break during the modern period, from 1517 until independence from the UK.  There is ZERO continuity of institutions of government from the Mameluk rule to modern Egypt. - Atarr (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Atarr, you are confusing two VERY DIFFERENT elements: a change of dynasty/political status and the breakup of a country as a political entity. Egypt did not have any "millenia-long break in rule". What merely changed was Egypt's political status: under the Romans Egypt was a province and a personal property of the Emperor, under the Fatimids it was an independent kingdom, under the Ottomans it was a province, etc... However, Egypt as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders never ceased to exist, unlike Israel or Italy. That is the point I wish to highlight. You say that "it's bizarre that you take issue with Italy but not Egypt". I'm not taking issue with anything. What I simply want to underline is that you CANNOT put on an equal footing countries like Egypt, France or China with countries like Italy or Israel. Despite numerous changes in dynasties and regimes over the centuries, Egypt, France and China have never really ceased to exist as political entities, at least not for a significant period of time. On the other hand, you have countries like Italy or Israel that are modern re-creations of "states" that had disappeared from the map for nearly 2000 years. Speaking of something else, I find it really far-fetched that you summarized your |your recent Taiwan-related edit by saying that it " reverted China's representation to previous compromise solution". As far as I can see from the discussion that took place on this talk page, 3 users (NeilTarrant, Inge and myself) were clearly in favour of having one China section with several subsections (NeilTarrant disagreed about the dates, but he supported the layout). You were the only one against the new layout. Therefore, the compromise solution that was agreed upon was to have a single China section, NOT a separate section for Taiwan. Regards. BomBom (talk) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Formation of the UK
I honestly cant believe that im having to post this but Tharkuncoll is determined to insert blatant nonsense into this article. The United Kingdom was formed in 1707 - this is not controversial. At most, pedants might say that the "United Kingdom" technically didnt come into existence until 1801 as the state formed in 1707 was techncially named the "Kingdom of Great Britain" rather than "United Kingdom of X". Sticking in some 10th century English date is beyond a joke and anyway, if we we're to go with dates from states which pre-existed the formation of the UK then the date would be 843 - the foundation of Scotland which was earlier than the foundation of England. Also the arguments ive seen based around the fact that Athelstan claimed to rule all of Britain are, well, stupid even by the absolutely idiotic standards of the version which maintaints 927 as the founding of the UK. Im seriously finding it hard to express how flabbergasted i am by this. Ive seen a lot of idiocy on wikipedia. A lot of blatant bias and POV and anti-factual edits but this is up there with the very worst. siarach (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This list is not about continuity of statehood, but rather the first time a geographical territory came under a single ruler. Why are you incapable of understanding this? Please have a look at all the other entries. TharkunColl (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the first time this geographical territory cameudner a single ruler was 1603! This is not remotely controversial. siarach (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was in 927 under Athelstan. Please go and read the sources in the entry you have just deleted again. You may learn something. TharkunColl (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No it wasnt and only an unashamed partisan would make such a ludicrous claim. It'd be a bit like some daft Scots nationalist claiming that, regardless of historical fact and sound, orthodox historical thinking, the Kings of Scotland were the first rulers of all Britain as "Alba" historically referred to the entirity of Britain. I mean i really cant believe the gall required to make such a blatantly invalid and POV edit as you have done in this article. siarach (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Æthelstan
 * Athelstan
 * Athelstan
 * britroyals.com
 * Anglosaxon Britain

You clearly need a history lesson so for a start off try these sources, which you deleted - did you even bother reading them? Just because you happen not to like it, doesn't mean it's not true. TharkunColl (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Il just save myself the bother and copy and past from my talk page:


 * "I notice you haven't responded to my last question. Did you bother reading the sources before deleting them? TharkunColl (talk) 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Err a reply within 6 minutes wasnt fast enough for you? Not that i should really have bothered as anyone so detached from reason as to think the edit youre trying to enforce is in any way defensible or sound is hardly open to persuasion by facts or rational argument. With regard to sources - as with many other articles (the Safavid dynasty was and probably still is a prime example) sources are not the problem but the blatant misuse and mis-interpration of them. siarach (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)"


 * Athelstan received the submission of all the other British kings, including Constantine of Scotland. He assumed the title King of All Britain. If this doesn't count, then please go and change all the other entries on that list that use similar criteria. But why bother arguing with someone whose agenda is so blatantly obvious? TharkunColl (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. Using this type of reasoning there can be little doubt that the European Union was first founded in 753 BC. Why I can even provide a source or 2 (hundred). I suppose I could change it myself but -- no what am I thinking... -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Derek. Naturally using the same thinking that infects much of this article the fact that Muhammad claimed to be God's final prophet in a long line stretching back to Adam makes this a reality. Similarly the fact that most of the Byzantine emperors continued to claim sovereignty over Western Europe cancels out the reality that they had no authority and that the West consisted of variously petty and greater kingdoms. Also the fact that the Chinese emperors claimed, and were generally recognised by everyone within range of their influence, as rulers of "all under heaven"/the world means that they undeniably were - indeed surely this marks the foundation of the United Nations? I could whip out numerous other examples which one would have to acknowledge if the lunacy of this kind of nonsense were accepted as legitimate but i really cant be bothered. The fact that people are allowed to put up, and maintain, such shameless nonsense and wishful thinking is what will stop wikipedia from EVER being taken remotely seriously as a reference work. siarach (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 753 BC for the European Union? Someone obviously hasn't understood the point of the list, and probably doesn't want to either. But it really isn't that hard to grasp. And as for Siarach's nonsense about claims, the whole point of the entries on this list is that such claims corresponded with reality and were not merely specious. TharkunColl (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be disregrading the debate here. You at least seem to be disregarding my edit summary. I hope you won't prove to be a disruptive force towards this article. My argument is that this list should not go against information in the main articles. Your version links to Great Britain which does not mention the event you are referring to. Indeed the article about the country United Kingdom states something very different from your version. If you want your version to stick you will have to get it through in the main articles first. Inge (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Those articles are about states. The first column of this article is about the first time the region came under a single ruler. Please check the references and stop disrupting the article. TharkunColl (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the entries are about states. The entry you are trying to change has the title United Kingdom which is a state. The changes you are trying to make are obviously controversial as they are not even mentioned in the article about the region you are referring to. The original version uses the information as found in the article about the country the coloumn refers to. You are the only user disputing that and should therefore if you wish to be a constructive editor let the article remain with the original consensus based information. This list is meant to be a compilation of information found in the main articles. We are not going to invent the wheel again. Go to either the United Kingdom or Great Britain article and get your view through there. This article will of course then be changed accordingly. Inge (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The first column concerns the approximate geographical region that is covered by the modern state. Just have a look at all the other entries. Italy, for example. Or Israel. Or any of them. What is it about this concept that is confusing you? By the way, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Check the actual references given for Athelstan. TharkunColl (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Inge, we absolutely should include information from articles on the state when we consider what to put in the second column. The first column, however, is not about the formation of the modern state, and need not conform with those dates.


 * Additionally, it seems a bit disingenuous to change the article and then claim it should stay untouched until the discussion is resolved. - Atarr (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References which do not support your quite determined POV take on history. Nor, for that matter, does the information at the start of this article. siarach (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Was Athelstan accepted as ruler of Britain by the other rulers on the island? Did he assume the title King of All Britain? If the answer is yes to both of these, which it is, then he should be listed here. TharkunColl (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do no confuse submission/vague acknowledgements of overlordship with actual sovereignty or rule. I mean if youd made a claim in the name of Edward Longshanks (having more or less conquered most of the British Isles, albeit briefly in the case of Scotland) youd still be wrong but you might at least have an understandable choice but Athelstan is laughable and nobody could possibly support your POV without either a) not knowing very much about history b) sharing your determined and longstanding brand of POV-pushing. The first time Britain/the British Isles came under the rule of a single King was under James VI. Anyway there is absolutely nothing in the intro/criteria at the start of the article to justify your historically indefensible and entirely personal choice of Athelstan as the founding point for the United Kingdom or that this is supposed to be traced to the first time a vague geographical area corresponding to the modern territory of the UK came under a single ruler. This controversy is rooted entirely in your refusal to accept undoubted, orthodox historical fact and opinion over your own entirely wishful take on history. siarach (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who picked Athelstan by the way. I would have preferred Carausius. But you are underestimating Athelstan's power, which he was able to back up militarily at Brunanburh. I can only assume you are not an expert on the Anglo-Saxon period. And yes, had Athelstan not done this then Edward Longshanks would indeed be a good choice. If you don't change all the other countries to match your new criteria then your edit will not be stable, because you are making one rule for the UK and a different rule for others. TharkunColl (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Shrugs* either choice is ridiculous and anti-factual. The main problem is the fact that you are making his claim to overlordship to mean a hell of a lot more than it did. Kings and emperors routinely submitted to each other and acknowledged overlordship depending upon their situation. The King of Scots submitted to the King of England? Yeah, just as the Byzantine Emperors submitted on occasion to the Persian emperors and vice versa. Numerous examples abound throughout history. Submission to a king or emperor did not make that king or emperor the ruler of the submitted nation. This isnt an ambiguous issue. You are making the claims of Athelstan out to mean a hell of a lot more than they actually did and one would only do so out of ignorance of what these claims of 'overlordship' - or the submissions which led to them - actually mean or out of simple POV pushing. As for your insistance that the edit isnt valid unless every other entry is also changed that simply isnt true. There is already a massive variation in what rule (if any) seems to be applied - quite frankly this article is an example of some of the worst of what one can find on wikipedia. Anyway as ive already said the fact that theres a lot of nonsense is not an excuse to also maintain nonsense in the specific example of the United Kingdom. siarach (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had the union of the crowns in there a while back, and people kept trying to replace it with 1707. This simply makes zero sense by the standards of the article.  Putting 1707 in just shows that you don't understand the point of the first column listed here.  It's not about whether the modern state appeared at that time; it's just a question of whether the area was governed by a single political entity which has a strong cultural/linguistic/historical link to the modern state.  To say that 1603 fails to meet that criteria while 1707 does, is simply wrong.  1603 is the latest possible defensible date for the first column of the UK entry.


 * I am not an expert in British history, so I can't comment on whether Athelstan's control over Scotland was symbolic or meaningless. For the record, siarach, you have not argued this either.  If you care so deeply about this, then it seems reasonable to ask you to provide some cited material to support your claim that his rule was indirect and meaningless.  TC has provided several citations that seems to support his point of view, and none of them can be considered biased or unreliable.


 * If 1801 is considered so important, then we can include it as a split cell with 1707, with both of them in the second column. I'm not sure I see it as terribly significant, though.  I'm sure someone from Belfast could step up and argue otherwise... - Atarr (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * provide some cited material to support your claim that his rule was indirect and meaningless. TC has provided several citations that seems to support his point of view, and none of them can be considered biased or unreliable.


 * How about the side who are promoting an unorthodox and deeply dubious view of history provide references which prove that his rule was anything other than indirect, symbolic and generally meaningless? I will happily waste my time looking up references to "prove" the non-existence of direct rule (the non-existence of which is not doubted anywhere but this page) the very second evidence is provided proving the formation of a single Kingdom of Britain in the 10th century under Athelstan (and anyone capable of doing so should first send said evidence to every university History department in the country) and in doing so re-write medieval British history. This evidence will not be forthcoming because the symbolic claim to overlordship was exactly that - symbolic - and only someone unfamiliar with the frequency with which submissions were made, and temporary overlordships acknowledged, between princes throughout all regions throughout all history would confuse the symbolic claim of Athelstan as being anything other than what it was. As for the references provided by TharkunColl these state that Athelstan claimed the title King of Britain they prove only that he claimed that title. They in no way justify the pov which has been imposed upon this article that the UK can in some way be traced to the 10th century and that a single state/Kingdom was created covering Great Britain and ruled by Athelstan. These claims that submissions/claims to overlordship such as we see in the time of Athelstan mean anything are at best rooted in simple ignorance of the practices of the time. siarach (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of your dispute with this date arises from the idea that this article is trying to "re-write medieval British history". That's not the point.  Even if the first column contains Athelstan and is completely accurate, it does not mean that the UK "came into existance" in any meaningful sense in the 10th century.  It just means that some state that has a historical link to the modern one came into existence in the same region at that time.  Let's not dramatize this.


 * Maybe what we need is a simple definition of what it would mean to actually have control over an area, in this time period. The phrase "direct rule" doesn't have much meaning in this period.  From my understanding, being a meaningful overlord of an area really only means about two things:
 * * The local lord won't fight against you.
 * * If you are fighting a war, you can call upon the local lord and he will send you some troops.


 * So... I think the first of those is a given, i.e. nobody is disputing that Athelstan didn't fight any wars in Scotland after the one being referenced. So, only the second criteria needs verification.  Do you have any issue with that argument? - Atarr (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if this article had nothing to do with the UK and its founding it would still be wrong to say that Athelstan was King of Britain - he simply was not. As for the two rules you mention, this really is taking the article even further into the realms of original research and neither would prove the existence of a single Kingdom covering Great Britain entirely with Athelstan having regal authority over its entirity - but we already know that such a state of affairs was never the case. Rather than come up with ever more needless rules of increasingly dubious validity lets just stick to the facts. If we're looking for the first prince to reign over Britain entire (and despite repeated references to the criteria at the start of the article in defence of selectin Athelstan, i see absolutely nothing there to justify using the first date when a vague region came under the rule of a single figure as being the "Date of Statehood") then we go with James VI since he was the first prince to reign over Great Britain. However (again) there is no reason, going by the paragraphs at the top of the article, to go with James VI either. The first state to be referred to as the UK is the Kingdom of Great Britain which was founded in 1707 - the date and 'version' of history provided by the UK government itself for the founding of the state. siarach (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear TharkunColl, I join Inge in hoping that you do not become a disruptive force towards this article. Given your previous behaviour on Wikipedia which led to your banning, I strongly suggest that you calm down. Writing edit summaries with capital letters clearly shows that you are hotheaded and have a hard time controlling yourself. Regards. BomBom (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, saying that "anything else is deliberate vandalism", especially when the issue being dealt with is far from being settled in a clear-cut way, is not appropriate.
 * Secondly, since all but one of your edits on this article have been related to this Athelstan controversy, it seems to me that you are more interested in having this particular date inserted rather than in trying to genuinely improve the article.
 * Thirdly, stating with regard to the 927 date that "it has been agreed in discussion" when in fact you are the only one agreeing with yourself, is somewhat dishonest. UKPhoenix79 was the one who initially put this little-known date without consulting anyone or even taking the time to write an edit summary. You and him have since been repeatedly reverting anyone trying to change the date by calling it the "original" one, and have even gone as far as warning them with the three-revert rule. That is not exactly what I call consensus that has been agreed upon, and the three-revert rule might just as well apply to yourself in this case.
 * Fourthly, please stop pretending that you know what this article is all about by making arrogant statements such as "The first column is NOT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATE". As the one who created this newly merged article along with Inge, I can assure you that the first column was indeed perfectly intended to cover the current state. In fact, the initial definition that was given in the article unambiguously defined the date of statehood in the following terms: "Date at which current country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders (country must have been continually existent in some form since then)". This definition remained there for several months until Atarr inexplicably changed it in mid-January without consulting anyone or providing any explanation for his edit. I just noticed this now, and I am thus starting a new discussion about the Definitions section below, since I noticed that Atarr has changed the definitions as he pleases several times since then. Moreover, you have been recently creating debate over the statehood of countries such as Germany, Italy and Saudi Arabia, even though the article listed for each of them historically accurate, perfectly well-established and uncontroversial dates of statehood. Trying to link at all costs these 19th-20th century states with medieval kingdoms with which they do not have any kind of continuity is not a useful contribution to the article (I was really stunned by your suggestion to have the unification of Arabia under Muhammad included as the date for Saudi Arabia's statehood). I agree that for some countries such as Egypt, France or the UK, finding such a clear-cut date of statehood is not an easy task, for these countries have been continually existent for a very long time. What we should be doing, therefore, is to have a sensible discussion around these particular cases, rather than engage in childish edit wars and post 3RR warnings on people's talk pages.
 * Finally, saying that "If you wish to change the UK, PLEASE CHANGE ALL THE OTHERS AS WELL." shows that you do not clearly understand what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, which means that many people contribute to a single article, and that articles can thus contain many inaccuracies, incoherencies, etc... This article undoubtedly does contain several irrelevant dates that should be removed. Many of them, by the way, were inserted by Atarr based on what you and him decided; I am thinking in particular of France, Germany and Italy. However, the fact that someone decided to put 1006 BCE as the date of Israel's statehood doesn't make that a binding precedent. Because of Wikipedia's very nature, you can't simply say: the nonsense should be removed all at once, or all the nonsense should be kept exactly as it is.

Why is the UK so controversial but nothing else using the same criteria controversial. Since it has been taken to the archive I will re-list my previous reasons. looking at the rest of the article and seeing that some countries have the Formation being 2897 BC (Viet Nam) I think that I'm having second thoughts! What I am proposing is following other countries leads:
 * China on December 22, 221 BC Unification of China by Emperor Qin Shi Huang
 * Denmark in the 10th century Organized as a unified state by Harold Bluetooth around 980.
 * Egypt in 3100 BC Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Menes
 * Ethiopia in 980 BC Beginnings of a state forms in area that will become Ethiopia (traditional date of founding)
 * France in August 843 Treaty of Verdun, whereby Charles the Bald receives West Francia, the precursor of modern France
 * India 320 BC Unification of India by Emperor Chandragupta Maurya
 * Iran in 728 BC Establishment of Median Dynasty by Diyako
 * Israel in 1006 BCE David consolidates the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah into a single state
 * North Korea in 74 when Goguryeo under Taejo consolidates remaining states of northern Korea
 * South Korea in 668 AD when Unified Silla under Munmu gains control of the southern portion of the Korean peninsula
 * Myanmar in 1044 when Anawrahta's establishment of the First Burmese Empire
 * Norway in 872 when Harald Fairhair creates the first unified Norwegian state by uniting the Norwegian petty kingdoms
 * Serbia in c. 800 Višeslav unites medieval Serbia into one state
 * Sweden in 995 Olof Skötkonung became the first king to rule both Svealand and Götaland
 * Viet Nam in 2897 BC Rise of Văn Lang Confederacy from Văn Lang Tribe

So if conquests by a person putting them under one body of power would make the foundation of the UK as either: Since this article is being specific stating that: and since I would feel comfortable stating one of the 1st 3 above as the Date of statehood'' I assumed that this article made some sense. But since my thoughts apparently counter the majority of the editors here I will happily keep in the spirit of this article and change the date of statehood to one of the above. Now Since this takes into account the most recent significant integral territorial modification I wont feel bad about the notable absence of Ireland if I include either Alfred or Athelstan but there is a notable bonus in using Henry II since the Laudabiliter issued by the (Norman-English) Pope in 1155 gave the English thrown the territory of Ireland. But since Athelstan is considered the 1st of a unified Britain and unlike Alfred or Henry that included Wales I will list his date. ''
 * Alfred the Great in the late 9th century
 * Athelstan of England in 937 after the Battle of Brunanburh the first ruler of a Unified Britain
 * Henry II of England in 1175 by the Treaty of Falaise also a ruler of a unified kingdom.
 * Date at which the country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders.
 * Date of most recent significant integral territorial modification : Date at which country acquired its current territorial shape, with only losses and acquisitions of territories being taken into account[..]

I hope my reasons have been clear, Since the editors believe that the 1st ever unification of the territory, even if it didn't have political links to modern day (and in some cases have only a slight geographical link) then make 937 the Date of statehood since this at least is the first time that the all of Great Britain was under one ruler (aside from Rome) and Ireland would be a territorial modification that happened later.

Personally I think this is ridiculous but since everybody seams to think going with 1st historical union of the land mass under an independent ruler from another external empire this is the only solution left. Now I think that the page should be re-worked so that it is related to the birth of the modern country we know of today and the birth of the current political system we now have. In the UK that would be Bill of Rights 1689 and the Claim of Right Act 1689 that created the constitutional monarchy in the UK and gave power to the Parliament. This would also mean that the US would be the United States Constitution in 1787 and in France the First Republic. But until that day either all the ancient dates stay or all of them go! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formation date is 1922. 1707-1801, was Kingdom of Great Britain; 1801-1922, was United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The date 1603 is definitly wrong - as England, Scotland were independant until 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contributing, GoodDay. I hope this doesn't make me too much of a pedant, but I'm going to ask you to clarify what you mean.  I can see three options for what you mean, although there's probably others.


 * First, you could be suggesting 1922 as the date the UK first appeared as a unified political entity. This seems odd to me as it was called the UK before that, and ruled all these areas still before that.


 * Second, you could be suggesting 1922 as the date that it first acquired its current sovereignty. This case still seems odd to me because the institutions of government hardly changed at the time, and the name of the UK didn't change (to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") for another five years.


 * Third, you could be suggesting another definition for what these columns should mean. If so, please elabotrate here or in the definitions discussion.  Regards, Atarr (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * GoodDay I never said 1603... Where did that number come from??? Why is the United Kingdom treated differently then the United States of America??? Apparently Americas Date of statehood was its declaration of independence in 1776, which is silly because it didn't gain independence until 1783 (but not as silly as most of the dates listed). Yet, it has expanded drastically since then and now numbers 50 states not 13. According to your Logic the United States Date of statehood should be 1959 when Hawaii and Alaska gained statehood! The UK for all purposes has states also, there just not called states (silly but were all just too proud). The UK expanded from a Constitutional Monarchy spanning 2 different countries in 1689 (The Kingdom of England and Wales, and the Kingdom of Scotland) (3 countries if you count the principality of Wales or 4 if you also include the crowns personal union with Ireland) to essentially 2 states with one government in 1707, Since then it has expanded in 1800 to include another "state" (the Kingdom of Ireland) and shrank in 1922 with the loss of a part of that "state", creating Northern Ireland. So if you really think 1922 should be used 1st try to convince people that the US Date of statehood is 1959 :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that 1783 makes the most sense for the USA... which is why it is listed. 1776 is there too, but lots of states have split cells to handle "declaration of independence" versus "recognition of independence".  The handling of the USA is not really unusual.


 * 1603 is when all of the British Isles were brought under one ruler for the first time. That seems quite significant to me. - Atarr (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your list of examples contain does contain examples that need correcting. Some do not: for instance the dates for Sweden, Denmark and Norway are as correct as possible. Those countries were founded around those dates and remained separate kingdoms ruled by one monarch during their various unions. One person can be king of more than one country without those countries becoming one. The UK is a prime example of that with regards to the "other realms". This article seems to have become a vent for editors who can't get their views through in the main articles. I would think it would be a much higher priority to "correct" dates in the main articel of each country. So I urge those who want to insert dates conflicting with the main articles to take it there.


 * This list had come a long way from the previous situation. With three competing lists all facing the same problems and none solving them. It was worked over and given well thought through definitions considered to fit the purpose and be durable. There was/is still a long road ahead. Now it seems there are moves to tweek or change definitions to suit views on individual countries. Any given definition will not fit every country 100%, at least not without becoming an essay. Then it is prudent to ask the editors to be open minded enough to consider the purpose of this list and the direction or spirit of the definition. It is to describe the formation of each of the world's present day countries in a short style taking into consideration the introduction to the article. To that end we have used the dates found in the country's main article as those dates will have gone through an extensive quality controll and will have been agreed upon by a large number of editors. Here now we are about 5-6 editors. A couple with very strong views conflicting with the conventional dates.


 * As a historian I know that this list will never be perfect as "Nation-building is a long evolutionary process. It is therefore practically impossible to come up with a single date for a nation's "birth"." However I realise that this type of list will most certainly be created again if this one was to be deleted and that it could easily be taken over by people competing to show their country as old as possible. I supose some of those debating here might have been baited by the poor quality of some of the other entries. The list needs correcting, but if we are going to repeat the debates on each single country the list will be in permanent chaos (espeshially using the tools exibited in this case). Look to the main articles!Inge (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with 1707 as the founding date. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I came across this quote from a source that should be viewed as reliable - quote below plus link. Further evidence to support 1707 as date of formation of UK.


 * "United Kingdom

The term 'United Kingdom' was originally just a shortened form for 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain', the name by which the united kingdoms of England and Scotland were officially known after 1707. Ireland was always separately named in Britain's formal title--'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'--and this continued after the Anglo-Irish Union of 1801, with 'Ireland' changing to 'Northern Ireland' in 1921."
 * From http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/04_03_trade.html
 * Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem like it's really adding anything new. Nobody is debating the etymological origin of the term "United Kingdom".  Britain and Ireland were listed seperately after 1801 because Britain is a geographic term.  I suppose they could have re-named the state "the United Kingdom of the British Isles" in 1801, but, well, they didn't, and I'm not reading anything into that. - Atarr (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

USA vs UK
If the United States can add another 37 states to the union and the addition of Hawaii not be called the recent acquisition of sovereignty why does the addition of Ireland create that for the UK and force the date of acquisition of sovereignty to be 1801? Did the French Revolution go to the British Isles and overthrow the government during that time? Wouldn't a better date be the creation of a constitutional monarchy in England & Scotland (Bill of Rights 1689 & Claim of Right Act 1689) with the power being located fully in Parliament be the correct date? It created the modern government that we see today and happened in the Major nations at the same time. Territorial expansion is covered by the next column. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or how about when Henry VIII threw off the rule of the Catholic Church? That surely was an augmentation of sovereignty. TharkunColl (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You think being a catholic and a leader automatically makes you a puppet of the pope??? Even back then the Pope knew better, heck the Spanish were holding him captive and a few years before that he was exiled to France... The Pope had power no one can doubt that, but he was not a king. Being a catholic doesn't make you subservient to the catholic church... yikes... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that sounded harsh... I was just surprised but the suggestion. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can get on board with 1707 as current acquisition of sovereignty. As I said yesterday, there's really no one answer for the UK by the definitions of the article, because the UK is a uniquely thorny nation.  You could make reasonable arguments for 1066 or 1214 or 1215 or 1603 or 1688 or 1689 or 1707 or 1801 or 1921 or 1953.  The point is that we should make sure we are comfortable with a standard that we can use to come to decisions over a range of nations, and then apply that to the UK as best we can. - Atarr (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can accept 1707. But 1603? certainly not. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to comment - there is no case for 1066 as that was just the pre-existing English Kingdom being conquored. Similarly, 1215 was just about England. If you are looking for a date prior to 1707, a case could be made for when Cromwell formed the English commonwealth as that included all current UK territory (though it would be strange to argue that the first step in the creation of the United kingdom was the creation of a 'united republic'!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly wouldn't argue for 1066 or 1215. I could make a somewhat rational argument for something just before 1215.  It was during that period, after all, that the British domains of the King of England superceded the importance of the continental posessions for the last time.  Basically every English or British monarch from that period onward spend most of his or her life in Britain, which was not true before that.


 * Of course, using that date nullifies the importance to Scotland and Ireland, so I wouldn't seriously suggest it.


 * As far as Cromwell, this seems like an artificial date. Cromwell re-conquered Ireland following a rebellion.  The Tudor re-conquest of Ireland (still a "re-conquest", owing to Norman conquest in the 1200s) was completed by 1603, which of course dovetails nicely with the union of the crowns (which included the crown of Ireland which Henry VIII acquired in 1541).  Again, I really can't see how we can justify a date later than 1603 for the first column.  Even by the more restrictive definitions that are suggested in the "definitions" thread, having the exact same name and form of government is not required.  The modern UK government clearly and unambiguously evolved from the government of James following the union of the crowns, without any break in sovereignty.


 * If we put 1707 as the header for the second column, which is reasonable, then we should probably make note of 1801 and 1927 as well, although those could be footnotes in my opinion. Something like what I had in this revision, perhaps with footnotes about Athelstan. - Atarr (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Great Britain has been under one ruler at least 2 times before then (baring the romans), from 927 under Athelstan of England till 939 Edmund I started to loose his grip on power. Then again with Henry II in 1175 by the Treaty of Falaise until 1189 when Richard the Lionheart sold Scotland to raise money for the Crusade's.

My point about the US also stands Why do we have to mention every territorial expansion made to the UK and not have to mention the 20 or so congressional bills that expanded the US? It should be this simple

OR

If the power of this modern government is the foundation of the preeminence of the parliament over the Authority of the Crown then 1689 cannot be stated as anything less then this Countries Statehood/Acquisition of Sovereignty and the creation of what we now call the United Kingdom. Everything else is either the unification of the two competing Parliaments of Great Britain or Territorial modifications just like the 37 other states in the United States. It is hard to say which one should be listed as statehood or acquisition of sovereignty so I showed both for your considerations. After all one is purely political and another is political and territorial. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like either. GB is not UK. Why doesnt the page read 1801? It really is the only correct date for the formation of the UK! --Camaeron (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So if the United States of America when it officially decided to make Puerto Rico a state also for some unknown reason renames itself United Nations of America it would have a new Date of statehood? Territorial acquisition and renaming of a country that is the same politically and socially makes little sense. Don't forget that Ireland was not an independent nation in 1800 either just like all but a few states in the union it was essentially a territory until it was unioned with the main state/government. On the other hand The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent nation just like California Republic, Republic of Texas, Republic of Hawaii, etc. So if we claim unioning with an independent nation then the Newlands Resolution in the United States Congress in which the Republic of Hawaii was annexed to the United States and became the Territory of Hawaiʻi on July 7, 1898 would be Americas Date of statehood. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1689 - to be accurate, two constitutional monarchies were created in 1689 - the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England - that they each chose to offer the crown to the same person did not mean that a united state had been created, any more that 1603 created a united state. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Scotland wasn't any more independent in 1706 than Ireland was in 1800. Certainly, Scotland was more independent in 1602, but starting in 1603 it was one of several posessions of the monarch who ruled from London.  If being listed as a seperate kingdom in the list of somebody's titles qualifies something as an independent nation, then they both were independent before their respective acts of union.  Otherwise, they were both already part of a larger country.


 * And for the record there, "etc" = Vermont Republic. Those four states are the only ones that can claim to have been independent before joining the union (although California's short-lived republic doesn't really qualify in my mind). - Atarr (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Atarr. I think it may help if we agree what 'independent' means.  If you take the view that 'independent' means the ability to act independently, then there is no doubt that Scotland was independent in 1706. By illustration, was it it not the case that a prime motivating factor for Union in England was the fear that in any impending war with France, Scotland may have decided to fight on the French side rather than the English? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure threat of secession is a strong indicator of practical independence, although it certainly CAN be. That said, I think you could make a rational argument that Scotland was, in a practical sense, an independent nation from 1689 to 1707, as during that period the parliament was more powerful than the monarchy, and the parliaments were divided. - Atarr (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishiehelper2 I never claimed that the states were unioned only that the current form of government found in the UK is based on what happened in 1689. Atarr I think that there was also an independent Utah state and another state in the North West, but I cannot recall their names. And I would disagree about your view of Scotland in 1706 since it was indeed independent Frankly as Independent as any state is now in the EU, but economic ties made the union of the nations inevitable once political will got the ball moving. And Fishiehelper2 There is no way that Scotland would have gone with its old French sympathies and backed France over England. At that point the Scottish businesses were dependent on trade to England and all the powerful Scots had too much money tied in the English economy to even consider such a thought. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
The Arabian peninsula was first united by Muhammad by the time of his death in 632, and there is a continuity of language, culture and religion from then until now. TharkunColl (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's arguable. It's sketchy because the same claim could be made to some degree by Oman or Qatar or the UAE or Yemen.  Mentioning the First Saudi State could be nice, though. - Atarr (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam
The source cited says clearly "According to legend." I will continue to revert the spurious date. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it has no place on the list. Moreover, the area being referenced is only the northern edge of Modern Vietnam.  There are well-referenced dates before the 1400s - most clearly, 939 is pretty well-referenced.  But again, this state only governed the northern end of modern Vietnam.  I picked a date where most of Vietnam was controlled by a state that, furthermore, has an unambiguous link to modern Vietnam. - Atarr (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1400s date that the article currently uses is ridiculous and smacks of WP:OR. The Vietnamese nation-state achieved permanent independence from China in 939.  The additional lands are conquered land; picking the date where it controls most of the current land is akin to picking a date for the US after the Louisiana Purchase. DHN (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The only correct date, under the new rules, is when Vietnam achieved independence from France. Previous states of unity are now no longer acceptable. TharkunColl (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 939 is pretty obvious to me.  Blnguyen  ( vote in the photo straw poll ) 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A question about states
Although it only concerns the subject matter of this article tangentally, I can't think of any other place to put it off hand so here it is - are there any states that have changed their boundaries so much over the years that they no longer contain any part the territory they began with? I don't know of any currently existing examples, but the Roman Empire is the classic example from history, since it began as a small city state in Italy and ended up a small city state on the Bosporus. TharkunColl (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - The Republic of China (aka Taiwan). - Atarr (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions
I am starting a new section regarding the definitions that should be used in this article. Several people have changed the original definitions as they please, generally in order to accomodate a particular date that they wanted to include. Therefore, for the sake of coherence, I am proposing that we come up with clear and unambiguous definitions ONCE AND FOR ALL. Once we reach a decision, people should abide by it, and no one should be allowed to modify the definitions, even slightly, UNLESS they have discussed this first on the article's talk page. The problem that has arisen recently was whether or not ancient kingdoms such as the Kingdom of Israel or the province of Italia should be taken into account even though they ceased to exist for nearly two millenia. Personally, I don't believe they should because of the huge time gap and the total lack of continuity. Therefore, here are the definitions that I am proposing. All suggestions for improvements of these definitions are of course welcome. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Country: an internationally recognized independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these. The entire landmass of the Earth (excluding Antarctica), along with coastal seas is considered to be divided among such countries. There are currently 193 countries recognized by the United Nations — its 192 members as well as the Vatican City, which has all the full rights of membership except voting. Subnational political entities as well as de facto independent territories with limited or nonexistent recognition are excluded from this article.
 * Date of most recent statehood: date at which current country appeared as a unified political entity within the approximate area it currently occupies. The country in question must have been continually existent since then as a political entity. Regime changes and territorial modifications do not constitute a loss of statehood as long as there is an unbroken political continuity.
 * Date of most recent acquisition of sovereignty: date at which current country obtained its full sovereignty, the exercise of which must have been uninterrupted to this day. Acquisition of sovereignty may occur in various ways: through a formal declaration of independence, sometimes followed by a liberation war (e.g., the United States); through the expulsion or surrender of foreign occupying forces (e.g., Kuwait, several European countries after World War 2), through the mutually agreed breakup of a unitary state (e.g., Czechoslovakia)...
 * Date of most recent significant territorial modification: date at which current country acquired its present territorial shape, with only losses and acquisitions of territories being taken into account. Internal territorial reorganizations, minor modifications as well as still disputed territories are excluded from this article. The loss of colonies is also not taken into account, unless the former colony was considered an integral part of the country's territory (e.g., French Algeria).


 * I can see big problems with defining "approximate" borders. The USA in 1776 occupied just a small fraction of its present territory, as did Canada in 1867 and there are no doubt many, many other examples. Also, can a state change its name to something completely different? Can a state change from monarchy to republic and still be the same state? TharkunColl (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To state that I adjusted the definitions "in order to accomodate a particular date that they wanted to include" is completely false. I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to apply ulterior motives to my edits.  I'm trying to improve the article.


 * It doesn't really matter if (as you said earlier) "the first column was indeed perfectly intended to cover the current state" when the article was created. When I started editing the article, I very quickly realized that the definition, as noted, was not remotely followed by the article.  Honestly, take a look at the artcile before I edited the definition.  Even by a very broad definition of "continually existent in some form since then" (allowing for nations like China or France that have been conquered, fragmented, and reconstituted multiple times), the nations of Algeria, Armenia, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Japan, Lesotho, Mongolia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, San Marino, Sweden, Thailand, and Vietnam had dates that were pretty clearly in violation of the definition.  That's approaching one quarter of the listed dates!  Some of these dates (like the one for Egypt) you insist on defending, but really, most of the dates for the nations I list above make no more sense that the ones I have put in for Germany or Italy or others.


 * Furthermore, the comfortable majority of the nations listed that were not in violation of the listed definition were states that were post-colonial nations, where there simply wasn't an arguable date available that was in violation of the definition. Simply put, when there was a way to come up with a date earlier than one which would meet the listed definition, that date was generally chosen.


 * With that in mind, as an editor, I had a choice between two extremes:


 * 1) Adjust all the nations on the list to reflect the current definition.
 * 2) Adjust the definition to reflect the listed dates for the nations on the list.
 * I chose something of a middle way. I adjusted the definition to reflect the "facts on the ground", as it were, for the majority of the listed dates.  I did not make a definition which reflected the listed dates for all of the list, as this would have reduced the list to a collection of dates corresponding to tribal confederacies.  I tried to pick a date that would give a lot of information, and would respect most of the listed dates on the list.  I have still had to move the dates for many nations (such as Ethiopia, Vietnam, Japan, and Russia) forward to reflect the listed definition, but at least now there is some standard to the dates listed.


 * I have since adjusted the definition a couple more times, in an effort to tighten up the definition and make it more clear whether a given date should be used or not. But again, there was no ultierior motive here.  Just a desire to reflect the majority of the entries into the list and make the dates meaningful.


 * I will comment on your proposed definitions before the end of the day (MDT). Regards, Atarr (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that Statehood should be the foundation of the current political model this modern government follows. For the United States that would be the Ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 creation of the government we know today, For the United Kingdom it would be the Founding of the Constitutional Monarchy and supremacy of Parliament in the Land with the passage of the Bill or Rights in England and the Claim of Right in Scotland, For France it would be the overthrow of the kingdom and the start of the 1st Republic in 1792, etc, etc. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * France may currently be a republic, but since the date you list it has been a Monarchy and an Empire (twice) - so under your definition the founding date of the nation would vary, sometimes being pushed back sometimes moving forwards... surely this doesn't make sense. If the UK were to become a commonwealth (republic) again would our founding date be set at the English Civil War? --Neo (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On your definition of country - I commented in depth on this in the Kosovo thread and you may re-read my argument in its entirely there. I strongly object to any definition which leads to the exclusion of the RoC from this list.  That's a denial of reality.  UN membership is the simplest and easiest definition of a country, but it is not the only one that matters.


 * The definition as currently listed is fine. If we want to add to it, it should be a more nuanced explanation that allows for the inclusion of the RoC, while still explaining why other disputed territories are not included.


 * On your definition of "Date of most recent statehood" - this flies in the face of quite a lot of meaningful and useful information that was on the list before I started working on it, and many other dates that have been added by myself and others. There's nothing wrong with this definition, of course, but I don't see why we should change from what was and is the standard on the list.


 * I'm fine with your other two definitions, although they are a little bit wordy. - Atarr (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you are so bent on having the RoC included in this list at all costs. The problem with your definition is that it completely omits the "international recognition" dimension, and any serious political theorist would tell you that sovereignty without recognition means pretty little. If we keep the current definition, then I absolutely do not see why we shouldn't include South Ossetia, Somaliland, Abkhazia, etc... All of these are "independent territor[ies] with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these". You may say that the RoC is different since it is recognized by some countries. However, if we include the RoC, then I do not see why Northern Cyprus should be left out. Northern Cyprus may be recognized by Turkey only, yet Turkey as a major demographic, economic and military power is far more significant than all the 23 microstates recognizing the RoC combined. You said in an earlier post that your definition of "country" was "copied verbatim from the country article, under the subsection state", and that you "find that when these sorts of controversies are going on, referring to other wikipedia articles on the subject can be a nice way to achieve compromise". What I find strange, though, is that you chose to copy only the first part of that definition. The full definition included in the article, which has remained unchanged for several months, clearly supports my point: "State is an independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these. The entire landmass of the Earth (excluding Antarctica), along with coastal seas is considered to be divided among such countries. There are currently 193 states recognized by the United Nations — its 192 members and Vatican City. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not currently a member of the United Nations, nor is it officially recognized by most other states.". However, if you think it is absolutely essential and vital to have the RoC included, then I suggest we include 2 sections in the article; one with the title "Countries with general international recognition" which would encompass the 192 UN members and the Vatican City; the other with the title "Countries with limited international recognition", which would include Taiwan, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus... I believe that would be a fair compromise, since it would show that such entities fit the definition of the term "country", but on the same time it would not be putting them on an equal footing with the rest of the world's countries, for the very reasons that I have explained above. As for the rest of the definitions, please see my post below. Regards. BomBom (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently, I need to re-type my entry from above, because you are ignoring several arguments I made there, and continuing to equate the RoC with other nations whose case as a functioning country is drastically less well-supported.


 * The Republic of China is a country. It is a country that lacks formal diplomatic recognition from many nations, and U.N. membership.  But it is a sovereign nation in every other sense, and that includes all the ways that matter.  I mentioned WTO membership already, and that really should not be taken lightly.  It also has currency that is traded internationally.  Perhaps most telling, nearly every state in the world will stamp a Republic of China passport (PRC excepted, of course).  Try telling a customs official sometime that the RoC is not a real country.


 * You mention possible contries like (I'll expand on your list) Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, and South Ossetia. As far as I know, none of these meet the criteria that I listed in the previous paragraph.  All are recognized by zero countries, except for Northern Cyprus which is recognized by one (and is arguably a puppet state).  Simply put, their sovereignty is widely unrecognized.  Taiwan, on the other hand, has sovereignty which may be only de jure narrowly recognized, but is de facto widely recognized. Potential states like Western Sahara or the Palestinian authority simply lack sovereignty.


 * And as I said in my previous post on this thread, using U.N. status as the sole arbiter of country status forces us to some (IMHO) absurd conclusions about the existance of states. To wit:
 * Did South Africa wink out of existance in 1974, replaced by terra incognita? Did it rise out of the sea again in 1994?  Should 1994 be listed as the date which the RSA most recently acquired sovereignty?
 * Did the PRC, a nation that governed fully one fifth of the world's population, not exist from 1949-1971? What changed about the RoC in 1971 that made it disappear?


 * Look, I fully recognize that this approach could lead to controversies and votes. I just think it's better to try to reflect reality, rather than choose a narrow definition that denies it.


 * Kosovo is much more of a border case - its status is still a current event and in flux. I'm fine with tabling that one for the time being and waiting for wider recognition as well as establishment of more institutions (border control and customs relations, currency exchange, membership in various organizations, stable government, et cetera). - Atarr (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Once more, to be clear, Taiwan was once recognized by the UN as well as the vast majority of nations. Taiwan only lost the official recognition because pressure from China forced nations to pick between recognizing a small island nation or recognizing the nation where 20% of the world's population lives.


 * I'm completely uninterested in the RoC's claim on mainland China/Mongolia, just as I am uninterested in the PRC's claim on Taiwan. This is why the list currently refers to dates when the RoC commenced governing from Taiwan, as oppose to when it began to govern mainland China.  This article isn't about claims, it is about real countries in a practical sense.


 * We don't need a separate section for Taiwan. It fits just fine in the current list.  The other disputed nations don't belong on the list. - Atarr (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a real incoherency here. You want to exclude entities such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, and South Ossetia because "simply put, their sovereignty is widely unrecognized". But the problem is that you insist on opting for a definition that is precisely TOTALLY SILENT on the issue of international recognition. Therefore, the fact that such entities are unrecognized is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT if we continue to hold on to the current definition. These entities perfectly fit with the current definition, and should thus be included. As for the parallels you make, they are not very appropriate. In 1974, the UN General Assembly simply suspended South Africa from participating in its work due to international opposition to apartheid. Until 1994, South Africa thus became what is known in political theory as a pariah state. However, the recognition of its existence was never put in doubt, and countries continued to have full diplomatic relations with South Africa. A pariah state has nothing to do with a non-recognized state. Regarding the Republic of China's WTO membership and passport issuance, they cannot be used to justify its claim of being a normal country. Hong Kong, Macau and other entities all issue passports and currencies and have WTO membership, yet no one is saying they should be included in this article. Moreover, I'd like to point to the fact that the WTO membership is held by an entity called the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei)". The fact that the RoC is unable to adhere under its true name or under the name of Taiwan clearly underlines my point, namely that it is not a "normal" country. I was initially against the inclusion of the RoC; however, I tried to take into account your desire to have it included in the list by suggesting that we create a separate section for countries with limited international recognition. However, you are uncompromising, and want to pretend that the RoC is a country in the same way France, Egypt or Bolivia are. Whatever your sympathies for Taiwan, you cannot pretend that. I am suggesting a special section for special cases such as Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo... I believe it's a decent and unbiased proposal. Regards. BomBom (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with either the premise or the conclusion of the statement, "you insist on opting for a definition that is precisely TOTALLY SILENT on the issue of international recognition. Therefore, the fact that such entities are unrecognized is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT if we continue to hold on to the current definition." The premise is untrue; I am willing to augment that definition, either in the main text or in footnotes; I simply object to basing our definition entirely on the UN member states.  Furthermore, even if I wished to leave international recognition off the definition, it doesn't logically follow that I consider it "TOTALLY IRRELEVANT" (and there's no need to shout).  Finally, I did include an explicit reference to international recognition in the "acquisition of sovereignty" definition.


 * Macau and Hong Kong are irrelevant examples - they do not claim to be sovereign states and their international relationships are well-defined and uncontroversial.


 * You ignored what was probably my strongest example of "absurd situatuions cause by leaning on UN membership" - the PRC from 1949-1971. Would you really have insisted on including the RoC but not the PRC on this list at that time?  If so, don't you see what a massive denial of reality that is?


 * This point, once again, leads us to what makes the RoC unique among controversial nations. It was a UN member state for 25 years.  It was recognized by the vast majority of nations.  Nothing about the de facto nature of the RoC changed from the late 60s to the late 70s.  What did change is that diplomatic pressure from the PRC forced the UN and most states to (offically) pretend that the RoC didn't exist any more.  To call this preiod the "end" of the RoC as a country seems absurd to me.  It continued to administer the same territory and the same millions of people in the same way.


 * OK. I think I've pretty clearly explained why I think Taiwan is a unique situation among the "disputed states".  So, how about this as an alternate compromise: Let's put in the definition of "country" you prefer, but make a specific, explicit exception for the RoC, due to its unique history and situation.  I can't imagine another RoC-ish situation springing up any time soon, so I don't think this causes any additional problems down the line.


 * I don't particularly like the idea of a disputed territories section, unless it gets very careful definitions of its own, which would be hard to come up with. - Atarr (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting a disputed territories section. I'm suggesting a section entitled "Sovereign countries with some/limited international recognition". After much thought, I think I have come up with a pretty well-worded and unambiguous definition that should make you less hesitant about endorsing such a proposal. This is the definition I have come up with for this section, based on the List of countries:


 * "Countries with de facto sovereignty and limited international recognition, none of which are UN members, that may be defined as states in the body of customary international law, drawing on the precedent of the Montevideo Convention." Only 3 countries fit such a definition:
 * 1 state, no longer a UN member since late 1971, recognized by 22 UN member states and the Holy See (Vatican City), and currently with de facto international relations with many others, the Republic of China (commonly referred to as Taiwan).
 * 1 state, recognized by 22 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan) and expecting further but ultimately limited recognition in coming days, the Republic of Kosovo.
 * 1 state, diplomatically recognized by no UN member states except Turkey, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.


 * I believe such a definition has three advantages. 1°) It allows for the inclusion of the Roc, Kosovo and Northern Cyprus without putting them on an equal footing with widely recognized countries. 2°) It excludes de facto independent countries that do not have any kind of recognition whatsoever (Abkhazia, Transnistria, etc...). 3°) It excludes countries that have wide recognition but no sovereignty (Palestine, Western Sahara...). Does such a definition satisfy your concerns? BomBom (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like Northern Cyprus getting the same treatment, as it can easily be argued that it is a puppet/satellite state, and being recognized by only one other nation is a pretty pathetic bar to clear. There are several other states that I could see passing this low bar while still lacking nearly all the trappings of a de facto international state.  For instance, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic could be recognized by Armenia tomorrow, and it would be roughly the same situation as Northern Cyprus.  I'm comfortable drawing the line at sovereignty plus multiple UN member recognition.


 * If, as you suggest, we are only including 2 (or 3) non UN member nations, then I don't think they need to be listed separately. I would point you to the existing wikipedia standard.  Looking at the articles under lists of countries, only one, the comprehensive list of sovereign states, puts Taiwan in a separate section.  One list, list of current heads of state and government, puts Taiwan in the regular section but has Kosovo and the other disputed nations in a seperate section.  Every other list makes no effort to separate disputed territories.  Not incidentally, Taiwan seems to be on every list where it is conceivably applicable (i.e. ignoring lists like list of states with nuclear weapons), which is not remotely true of any of the other 9 disputed. - Atarr (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could something be argued regarding laws? The current UK has laws dating back to the states of England and Scotland, and I believe the laws of England were essentially 'reset' upon the Norman Conquest in 1066. The laws of America date back to the signing of the constitution (I imagine). There are certainly problems though, I believe a number of Commonwealth nations allow English Common Law as a basis going back to ... well, whenever.
 * I expect this could not be a universal solution though - probably a number of nations are more sensible with their laws that the UK and don't maintain a continuity with older states, but it should at least be a reasonably objective definition. --Neo (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For information: not only do Scotland and England have laws that predate the formation of the UK but separate laws continue to be made - Scotland didn't stop being a separate legal jurisdiction with separate laws when it became part of the United Kingdom! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case it would be akin to how different states in America can have differing laws and regulations but there is one body of power that has national & international power over any of the individual states. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the definitions have been changed by individuals who have found country entries in the list that in their opinion did not follow the definition. Changing the definition to fit individual countries is never a good idea. The definitions this list was built on are the following:


 * "Date of statehood : Date at which current country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders (country must have been continually existent in some form since then).

Date of most recent independence : Date at which country obtained its current independence (the exercise of sovereignty must have been uninterrupted to this day). Date of most recent significant territorial modification : Date at which country acquired its current territorial shape, with only losses and acquisitions of territories being taken into account, not internal territorial reorganizations (minor modifications and still disputed territories are also excluded). "


 * If it weren't for this debate already being underwy I would have retored these definitions, but I'll put them here for now so we can debate them some more.Inge (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Independence of State to be located?
I have noticed that the Declaration and the Recognition of a States independence from another government is listed in two differing locations in this list. Under statehood and acquisition of sovereignty. Can their be some clarification on where this should be located & placed in the definition of the term.

As currently stated:
 * Date of statehood : Date at which the country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders.


 * Date of acquisition of sovereignty : Date at which country obtained its current and uninterrupted de facto sovereignty in an area within its present-day borders, which was generally recognized by the international community through whatever institutions were present at the time.

I would surmise that statehood is about the foundation of the current State that we know today and not talk about some ancient government in 200 BCE. So sovereignty would deal with independence & recognition from the last time the government was ruled under another power. This works well for the Americas but for the old world we might want to broaden the definition a bit. It cannot be last territorial expansion or contraction since that is the next column and it cannot be the 1st unification since we will get the silly dates from 200 BCE back. Can someone help with that definition So we would be able to keep The list below the same

I believe if we get this definition correct then we might be able to get rid of the little squabbles that this page has created. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, UKP, I think this definition is every bit as vulnerable to squabbles as many others. For instance, why 1789 for France?  The government has changed many times since then - France is on its fifth republic IIRC.  I think the proper date there would be 1945 or thereabouts.  And your England date ignores Northern Ireland completely.  Surely someone would have a problem with that.


 * My broader problem with this definition is that it forces us to follow internal changes of government in every nation. This massively complicates tracking many nations.  I don't think this approach really helps us resolve things. - Atarr (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support something along these lines. After carefully reviewing everything that was said on this talk page, I have come to the following conclusions:


 * The "last territorial modification" column seems to be the least controversial. The only problem that had arisen here was whether or not the loss of colonies should be taken into account. I believe that the definition I proposed above solved this problem by suggesting that only colonies that were fully incorporated into a country's territory be taken into account. Since no one has objected to this, I believe that this is the definition that should be used and that the column should remain as it is.


 * The second column was a bit trickier. However, by renaming it "date of acquisition of sovereignty" instead of simply "date of independence", I believe we solved most of the problems that had previously arisen. Moreover, the definition I am suggesting explicitly says that acquisition of sovereignty can occur in many ways, not just through a formal declaration of independence. This thus enables us to accomodate for a wide variety of situations and to provide well-established and relevant dates for almost all countries (the issue of which date should be used for the UK here has yet to be resolved, but I believe we could come up with a solution for this particular case).


 * The "date of statehood" column seems to be the most controversial, and has been the object of numerous edit wars. After much thought, I have come up to the conclusion that it should be removed altogether, even though I am the one who initially created it. I believe a column with the title "Date of last significant regime change" or "Date of birth of current political regime" would be far more useful. Moreover, this would help us provide well-established dates for almost all countries:
 * France: 1958 (or 1870, if we consider Republican legality to have been unbroken since then as French law curretly does)
 * Egypt: 1952
 * United States: 1788
 * Germany: 1949 (clearly a much more relevant date than either 919, 1871 or 1990, the latter date corresponding in practice to a territorial expansion to the east rather than to a genuine change in government)
 * United Kingdom: 1689
 * People's Republic of China: 1949 (clearly more relevant than either 1912 or 221 BC)
 * Israel: 1948
 * Norway: 1905
 * etc...


 * I believe that all of the above dates are uncontroversial and relevant. I can only see two (minor) problems with such a new column. The first would be whether military coups should be taken into account or not. For instance, it is clear that Syria's current regime derives from the 1966 coup; however, Syria as a republic is much older than that. The second problem would be to find appropriate dates for countries which have had an unbroken line of government for a very long time. Two countries caught my attention here. In the case of the Vatican City, we would have to go back to Saint Peter, which is problematic for two reasons: a) Christians did not have any kind of sovereignty over Rome until much later; b) The Lateran treaty, which created the Vatican City State, explicitly speaks of it as a new creation not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States. The second problematic country would be Japan, which has been ruled by the same imperial family for over two millenia. Of course, we could solve this problem by arguing that the adoption of the 1947 Constitution is such a drastic transformation that it can be considered a form of regime change even though the Emperor remained in place. If we come up with a clear definition of the term "birth of current political regime", then I'd be glad to support UKPhoenix79's proposal. BomBom (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm torn on this proposal. On the one hand, I entirely agree that most recent edit wars have centered around column 1.  I also agree that these dates ("Date of beginning of current political system") would be relatively uncontroversial, although we shouldn't pretend that they would be edit-war-proof.  Finally, I agree that these dates (when distinct from the other date) are meaningful and useful information.


 * That said, I do think the current state of the first column (give or take the few countries that are the subject of persistent edit wars) offers distinct and useful information that a lot of people want when coming to this article. I'm not entirely comfortable with wiping the collected information there out of the encyclopedia.  This proposal also means someone has to do a lot of work to repopulate the list.


 * I am very tentatively OK with this proposal. I'd like to see a good definition that adresses thorny issues like coups and civil wars, and I'd like some evidence that we've got a pretty good body of dates ready so that the column doesn't start 90% empty. - Atarr (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proviso that we can agree a date for France which I expect will cause most problems (what with the Third, Fourth and French Fifth Republics all (essentially) following on from one another - and France is being nice here by explicitly declaring the names of its government forms. --Neo (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I picked France the UK and the US for specific reasons. The US is one that I believe EVERYBODY can agree upon so it is a good measure of how changes of the definition effect it. The UK because you can claim unending rule (aside from the commonwealth) from the 8th Century but it has had only 3 real forms of Government, Crown, Crowns power over Parliament & Parliaments power over Crown. Then France who you could say dated from the 9th Century but that would not take into account the Republic since the 1790's and not only that the form of government has changes a bit over the years only to return to the Republic.

So here are the 3 definitions of the 1st Column Over 50% of the current country 1st under one Ruler independent of a Foreign power (what we have now) As you can see this is not what the initial column was meant to represent. If we take the definition as currently understood and applied it to EVERY country we would discover this type of mistake.

The next idea it to define the first column as the last union of nations where a single entity was created where once there was two. As you see this creates silly dates also. The end of one system of government to be merged with another is not a valid way to describe a nations statehood. In a way we could even say that the American nation was not founded until 1959 when Hawaii a once independent country with its own Royalty and parliament was assimilated into the nation.

This leaves one other way to judge a nations statehood. That would be the current Political system that is currently governing a country. This is why I chose France along with he other nations listed. Since the current Government is a Republic not a Kingdom nor a Constitutional Monarchy we need to go to the source and founding of that Republic. That would be the 1st French Republic in 1792. Now since then there has been an Empire, a constitutional Monarchy and many collapses of the government (even minor coups) but in the end it has returned to a Republic. So the foundation of that current model is what the nation of France celibates on July 14th and what it looks to as the birth of its nation.

So I believe I have covered those points accurately and simply enough now and I hope that you will work with me on my suggestion to improve this little article so that it actually has some useful dates listed and not arbitrary ones created to make ones nation look the best. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * UKP, please hold off on making large-scale edits while we are still discussing this. - Atarr (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, 1689 did not establish "Parliament the source of power" in the nations of the British Isles - there were separate and equally sovereign parliaments in Scotland and England at that time (for the separate countries) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Atarr I was only doing what has been done before and removing disputed content while discussion was going on, sorry if you thought it was too proactive on my part. Fishiehelper2 Actually according to Bill of Rights 1689, Claim of Right Act 1689 & Constitutional monarchy you are mistaken since both parliaments united to overthrow James II of England (VII of Scotland) and make Mary II and William III jointly rule the two nations. But William & Mary had to agree that parliament ruled the nations not the crown. Thus creating the system of government we know today (e.g. a Constitutional monarchy). -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But those two points are a side note to the proposed suggestion... Any comments on the proposal itself? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I agree with the proposal. However, I totally disagree with 1792 in France's case. This is not just really a side note, it's a real issue that has to be dealt with and resolved before we go on and change the definition. UKPhoenix79 says that since France has in the end turned into a Republic, then the foundation of the 1st French Republic in 1792 would be the correct date. By the same logic, if countries like Egypt or Israel become monarchies once again, does this mean we should reset their dates back to 3100 BC or 1006 BC respectively? I believe the date should be that of the founding of the country's current political regime, in other words that the political regime in question must have been continually existent since that date. In France's case, that would mean 1870 or 1958. Personally, I would opt for the first date, since many of France's major laws (such as the one on associations, on secularism, etc...) date back to the Third Republic. The First Republic has not shaped in any way France's current political institutions; and by the way, July 14, which is France's national holiday, is actually a commemoration of the Fête de la Fédération of 1790, which was a celebration of the short-lived constitutional monarchy in France; therefore it is not really a relevant date. Anyway, since a consensus seems to be emerging on this issue, I will try and work on my sandbox on a new table and will inform you when it's ready. Regards. BomBom (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * UKP, I certainly see your view and it's not a big deal at all. The ones you were changing though, were not really "disputed content" as they hadn't been the subject of any edits since they were first set to what they were.  The disputed content is mainly the UK, and a few other nations to a much, much smaller degree.  What you were doing was implementing your proposed change.  Again, it's not a big deal, and thanks for slowing down.


 * I agree with BB that a 1789 definition for France is highly problematic, and I agree that the Third Republic is probably the right date by the proposed new definition. Probably.


 * That said, the more I think about this, the less I am convinced that this change is going to significantly reduce the number of arguments about what date is appropriate. There are some nations (e.g. the USA) that are going to be relatively easy to figure out by any well-formed definition, and there are other nations (e.g. the UK, France) that are always going to be a source of argument because their evolution into the modern state was much more gradual and had numerous key moments.  Moreover, I still feel that the current form of column 1 provides useful and, yes, encyclopedia-worthy material.


 * I am actually considering suggesting that (gasp) both be included, with the current first column being more clearly labeled, e.g. "first independence of antecedent state". (Incidentally, UKP, I don't think "Over 50% of the current country 1st under one Ruler independent of a Foreign power" has been the working definition at any time.) At some point, though, the table just gets too unwieldy.  Maybe we only have columns 2 and 3, and send column 1, in both possible forms, to a new (sub-)article? - Atarr (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have created a new table on my sandbox with 5 countries that were previously somewhat problematic (Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, the UK); click here to see what it looks like. I honestly believe that the new table is pretty coherent, informative and uncontroversial. Atarr, I understand your reluctance to remove the first column altogether. It is indeed useful, and some might argue even encyclopedia-worthy. However, the current column as it stands would belong more in a List of civilizations than in a list of current countries. To be more precise, I believe that if what is feared is the loss of information contained in that column, then I suggest moving it to the Succession of states article and expanding the latter. I think the topic of that article would be more appropriate given the current content of the column. Moreover, it would allow users to show, without creating controversy (as this is the subject of the article), how the Roman Empire for instance gradually evolved to the current Republic that we have in Italy. Speaking of something else, are you OK with the definition of the Unrecognized countries section that I have proposed above? BomBom (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Atarr the reason I said over 50% is because that is what was apparently considered good enough to become listed as a new nation in so and so BCE. BomBom interesting page. I would have to say that I don't agree with Great Reform Act being included because if that was so then the Twelfth Amendment would have to be included for the US 1804 or the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870 giving blacks the right to vote or the Voting Rights Act in 1965 that actually allowed Blacks to vote none of these make sense. Suffrage while important is not a change of government but how that government is elected and who it supports. I didn't even talk about womans suffrage or how in the united states people only elected their local representative and had little influence in voting for governors, senators or president. But why is it that the union with England & Wales, England, Wales and Scotland, and then Great Britain and Ireland are considered Acquisition of sovereignty and the kingdom of England before its Union with Wales is not? The Kingdom of England didn't change before that date and didn't really change after that date! So why its absence? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BB looking at the names you have given Acquisition of sovereignty & Birth of current form of government then the definitions you gave I believe that you have reversed them. For the Birth of current form of government in the US would be the Ratification of the United States Constitution and the Acquisition of sovereignty would be the Declaration of independence and then its recognition at the Treaty of Paris (1783). Its a minor mistake but an important one.
 * Oh and I would say that if your definitions it could work very well for other states like the Vatican City. It lost its land in 1870 but the political entity continued unaffected. So going by your definition the 59 year absence of a Papal territory has no effect and makes the Vatican Citys Birth of current form of government the Papal conclave in 1274. Personally I'm fine with that since it makes sense and all I want if for this table to just make sense. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we looking at this the right way? It seems a lot of this debate is based on how to best administer some rules. We should in stead take a step back and think how we best can represent the formation of each current country in a short way. Not in relation to each other since each process was different. If a country was formed in 900 something and remained a political entity up to the present day the first column should have the 900 something date. That is also so if the country has changed government form and seat, and if it has been occupied, and if it has had it's territory changed to a reasonable degree. Some countries might trace their current state to a mediæval entity, but has in between been an integral part of another country. These countries are more tricky. As for instance if Wales were to become independant tomorrow it would certainly give 1056 as its founding date. However Wales has not been a political entity for hundreds of years. It don't think people would seriously argue against Wales being unified in 1056, but I suspect some would argue against having 1056 in Wales' first coloumn in this article and for certain if it was the only date mentioned. This is just one example of why we need several coloumns. One for the founding/formation/unification of the country, one for the last aquisition of sovereignty and one for territorial modification. Not all countries need all of the coloumns and some would combine them. It could be argued that some need more coloumns or other coloumns, but I believe the three we have suit the purpose well. But my main point is: let the definitions be general, administer them pragmatically, look at each country on its own and consult the main article if disputes arise.Inge (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BB, it's a nice list and I'm impressed with both the value of the information and the way you handled certain issues. I have three concerns:
 * I still feel that the "previous situation" column is unnecessary and adds clutter. The information can be included in the "event" field when it is not redundant.
 * I don't think this approach, while meaningful and germane, is going to prevent arguments much more than our other possible options, including the current first column.
 * Your proposal to add the current first column to predecessor states or a list of civilizations are not really appropriate. The current first column is a list of first unambiguous antecedent states, which is really neither of those.
 * I don't oppose this approach in theory, though. - Atarr (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a magnet for jingoism?
I came here because on the Talk:Belgium someone complained that Belgium mentions 1830 as foundation date and here we had "something completely different" (yes, I am quoting Monty Python with a purpose!). Basically, the state that became for a very short time independent from Austria in 1789-1790, was in French called the États Unis Belges, and in Dutch the Verenigde Nederlandse Staten, not Belgium. The territory was completely different, and to add insult to injury, as soon as the conservatives under Vander Noot had thrown out the French Revolution-inspired lefties, they actually started reunification talks with the United Provinces (the Northern provinces that broke away from Spain in the 17th century). So not the same name, not the same territory, and not even independence.

I must say that I see similar problems in a lot of the entries here. Bosnia and Serbia for instance are definitely three times as wrong as the Belgian entry used to be. I am not going to edit those, because I do not want to get re-involved in new East European edit wars, thank you. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is England?
The title is mísleading. Perhaps it should be moved to list of states....Otherwise I assume someone will add England which is def. a country! --Camaeron (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was decided at England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland (and United Kingdom); that England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are 'constituent countries' of the United Kingdom. Thus the UK itself, is the country. Under this criteria, England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland would fall under historical countries. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In what way is the UK a "country"? Certainly no one in the UK regards it as such. TharkunColl (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my doing (though I support it), see the articles I've listed (above). The editors there, chose to go with UK as a 'country' & the rest as 'constituent countries'. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then they are being wilfully, or unconsciously, ignorant. The UK is 3¼ countries. TharkunColl (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want the UK removed from this list and replaced with England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? Your best bet would be to bring this topic up at United Kingdom, IMHO. Assuming you want the UK described as something 'other then' a country. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a union. It's not a country. But there is no need to try and change a different article because other articles are not acceptable as sources anyway. TharkunColl (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. Good luck in getting the UK off this list; England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland, on it. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is not a country. TharkunColl (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replace the UK with England, Scotland and Wales 'only'? If you've got the guts? be my guest. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that the term "country" is used incorrectly by speakers of English outside the UK. TharkunColl (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't recall exactly where on Wikipedia, but I remember saying - if ever there was a place that existed as a country & four countries simultaneously? It was the UK. My guess is, you'll have a tough time getting a consensus on this article for the replacement of the UK with it's four divisions. But, I've been wrong before. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support keeping the UK but also adding Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the 'United Kingdom' entry. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This time I must agree with everything TharkunColl has said. Even people claiming England is a 'constituent country' (how I loath that awful term) must agree that even a 'constituent country' is a type of country hence the name!?!? Fishie's idea sounds rather good to me. Even though I'm still not convinced of the whole 1701 thing (see my comments above!). --Camaeron (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I support keeping the UK 'only'. But, whatever is decided? I'll go along with it, as it's not something I'd edit war over. I don't edit war anyways so, no big surprise. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Constituent Country' is a 'composite noun'. Sometimes composite nouns are a type of the noun contained within - for instance 'composite noun' itself. Other times they don't - a 'minor planet' (asteroid) is not a planet. One cannot, or should not, therefore make an inference as to the nature of whether a 'constituent country' is a country or not based solely on naming.


 * My personal opinion here is that by a normal definition of 'country' (and as English meaning is defined by usage) England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are not 'countries'. If we are going to define 'constituent countries' as countries then we would also need to include The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles] and [[Aruba who are named the 'constituent countries' of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Arguable we should also include other countries which are unions of per-existing states - e.g. in Spain then Aragon, Castile, Euskadi, Catalonia... --Neo (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we stage a vote without an admins permission? --Camaeron (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need an Administrators permission. You can set up a 'Request for comment' if you want. Or just have a survey, to get an idea what everyone thinks (like we're doing at List of British monarchs). GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be too picky, but - why write support next to one's moniker, when one's moniker is under the option one prefers? GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks tidier. Besides its how its done a rfa...--Camaeron (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the vote

 * Option one: Keep article as it is (only United Kingdom listed)
 * Option two: Add England, Scotland... etc also as the are undoubtedly countries. [That's a bit of pretty major POV pushing isn't it?]

Please feel free to vote and comment or to add another option!

- If you want to comment on a note you can use '#:' which will not disrupt the numbering of further votes. --Neo (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Voters may wish to view the following List_of_countries, which is a wikipedia internal note stating that country is used to describe England etc... --Camaeron (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Option one

 * 1) Support; GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support; the article may be mis-named and perhaps should be re-named, but the intention is for the article to refer to sovereign states. If the debate about UK proves irreconcilable, then we can have sub-headings within the UK for its constituent nations. But listing Scotland/England/Wales/Ulster separately is a non-starter. - Atarr (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: So you admit that in its current format (referring to the current title) it is incorrect not to list England? --Camaeron (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit that the current title should be changed from "countries" to "sovereign states". - Atarr (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support; being a 'constituent' country does not imply that something is a country. --Neo (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - as I understand it, this article was created to list the formation of sovereign, independent states, which neither Scotland, England, Wales, or NI are. They perhaps were, but that is not the case now. I also think the lead should be re-written to make clear that sovereignty is the qualifying characteristic to warrant inclusion here, and therefore other states, provinces, or constituent countries, which, though they may have their own foundation dates and own constitutions, are not sovereign. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Being a Brit I hate it when my fellow countrymen (including my own parents btw) start to talk about England and Scotland being separate countries. By definition a Country has to have an independent legislature able to make independent national and international decisions from another body (baring international treaties), with an independent diplomatic core, independent economies, with independent currency (this is why the Euro is on its way to creating one nation), and many many other things. As it stands right now England cannot declare war independent of Scotland the UK does that the whole NATION goes to war. Scotland does not have its own independent currency only the right to print currency (much like the State Quarters program in the US) because there is a united currency with one inflation rate. There is no Welsh Diplomatic mission to China it is the UK that represents the ENTIRE country. In no way are these nations actually independent countries. The best modern term that should be used are states much like what one finds in the united states (although Texans believe they are an independent country from time to time). Now I'm sure that someone will try to argue point by point how I am wrong... but you have to admit that England would have done much better in the world cup if it was a British/UKish (?) team. The whole independent mindedness of our country has hurt us more than I believe it has helped, and we need to unite finally as ONE nation not 4 nations... if only so that we can win some bloody world cups!!!!! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. it has always been about nation building. Creating separate entries for Scotland, the isle of Sark, Frisia, Bavaria (keeping Prussia out for the moment) and Texas would only further complicate matters here. In so far as the solution would be UK specific and lead to more POV on the entries for other countries/nations/states, the proposal would contravene Wikipedia rules against cultural bias (WP:BIAS), even (or perhaps: especially) if it would accommodate Sark and Texas. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. UK is the country. S, E, NI and W are parts of that country.Inge (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I really think that all lists of countries on Wikipedia should conform to the decisions at List of countries. I do not particularly antipathize with the inclusion of the constituent countries, but this list is simply the wrong end to begin in. (The issue has already been brought up several times at Talk:List of countries, and so far the outcome has been to keep them excluded.) -- Jao (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Option two

 * 1) Support - as subheadings of the UK -Camaeron (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - though add them under 'United Kingdom' as they are clearly not sovereign countries. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - as sub-headings under the UK. TharkunColl (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Abstain: I mat change my opinion depending on the strength and content of any debates that arise. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)