Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation/Archive 3

Changes to Definitions
I have taken the bold step to implement specific suggestions taken up at User:BomBom/Sandbox13. These definitions have been worked on by several editors for a while on this talk page and seam to give a more precise and definitive of what each row is supposed to symbolize. It is in no means perfect but it is much better then the old definitions that created much ambiguity on the page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a powerful illustration of why Wikipedia has so many detractors. Only on Wikipedia could I find, as I did today, a definition of the UK's formation date as being in the 20th century. How ludicrous and impractical and self-evidently the product of a nerdy argument and view of reality. The vast majority of the population in the UK would ridicule such a notion of formation, which I'm sure would include any people who were alive in 1922 who would have possessed UK birth certificates. Would any Frenchmen who lived through the Vichy think that the French state had not previously existed prior to the Vichy?

This article needs to get some cultural perspective. One serious fault is that the criteria for the definition of acquisition of sovereignty are too few and simplistic, and flies in the face of the complexity of reality. Am I not born until my birth certificate has been issued, as it were?

The majority of Scottish historians would state that the modern border of Scotland recognisably comes into being at the time of the battle of Carham when the last component nation (Northumbria) is drawn into the Gaelic milieu - before that, we're only talking about an area north of the Forth and Clyde. The reason Scottish historians don't equate Dail Riata with Scotland is because Scotia at that time was predominantly Ireland, not north Britain. The reason they don't equate the formation of present day Scotland with the end of the wars of independence is because those wars were fought in defence of an already existent sovereignty!

The majority of UK nationals would view the United Kingdom as first and definitively uniting and thus coming into being when the Scottish king became king of both Scotland and England and when those two nations joined. The reason they don't equate the formation of the United Kingdom with any event before that is because there had been no such state named such following any prior event. The reason they don't equate the formation of the United Kingdom with any event after that is because such a state already existed and was called such, at least in the 1707 Act of Union, where the stand-alone phrase United Kingdom is atually used.

Get some perspective, folks. I suggest you make your criteria much more flexible and culturally specific and thus avoid nerdy utopian concepts which will have no impact on what is already generally agreed by academic and amateur alike outwith the confines of Wikipedia. Which is a large body of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.225.35 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

France
Why so many formation entries for France, even going back to the 5th Century? If France gets such old founding entries than so should Spain, Greece, China, Korea, or Japan for their respective "national origins". I'd rather just leave it at the 5th Republic and get rid of the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.53.7 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -114.91.96.194 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the use of this info?
I wholeheartedly agree with Mais Oui...

I think that it was discussed already back in the day, surprisingly, the decission taken was keep this article, but...what for? why should this article exist at all?

Is it really anybody other than wikipedians asking for an article to check the "list of countries by formation dates" whatsoever? is that encyclopedic at all? and, if it was, is the outcome we are getting here encyclopedic at all?

This article just looks to me like the perfect excuse for bored (occasionally rogue) wikipedians to argue ad infinitum, with lots of WP:FRINGE trolls biting here, lots of deservedly cold or nasty replies, lots of confusion all over and, ultimately, no use at all.


 * I must say I agree as well. This article is more hazzle than use. If it were up to me alone I would delete it along with Date of independence of European countries. However I suspect it would be recreated in some form as soon as I/we turn our backs. Remember 3(4) of these lists were alowed to exist at once for months or possibly years.Inge (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too.Bill Reid | Talk 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant agree, while i do see and empathize with what you guys are driving at (the conflictory nature of attempting to define the births of many nations, whom even amongst themselves may not be entirely clear).. in the end the lack of information should not prevail. This subject in particular has come up many times in natural discourse outside of wikipedia in general and with me personally, this list is a great service to anyone who would be so intrested, as opposed to being forced to do laborious research. Indeed, this list reflects said research, which is sorta the point. Just because the ass-hats and troll-bags flock to the more contentious articles doesnt mean they should be removed Lionvision (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

German Occupation of Europe
The list now claims that Belgium and the Netherlands only became independent (again) after German troops left their territory. But from 1940 to 1944 both countries had governments in London. If those governments do not count, please explain how they had embassies all over the world (in fact, for a year or so they were absent from Moscow, Stalin finally giving in to nazi pressure just before Barbarossa), how they were able to found the Benelux and how they were able to declare war on Japan (yes, the Dutch even had a navy that fought or tried to fight the Japanese invasion of Indonesia). They all had an army being trained in the UK for the eventual reconquest. Belgian pilots fought in the Battle of Britain. Ships with a Belgian flag took uranium from Congo to the US. In the occupied territories themelves, part of the administration continued to function as if nothing had happened. In Belgium, which had military rule, the Belgian police and the courts continued to work "normally" (in fact, it was primarily the Belgian police who registered and arrested the Belgian Jews and the Belgian government has recently accepted that it is partly to blame and will pay compensation), but the people at the top (police commissioners, mayors and province governors - yes they left the structure intact - were steadily replaced by Belgians with pro-German sympathies). The legal viewpoint in Belgium definitely is that the government in London was always the real government of Belgium. There may be a problem with the East Cantons, because they were annexed by Nazi Germany, and the Belgian Goevernment in exile told the civil authorities to silently acquiesce with this annexation only to pretend after 1945 that the annexation never happened, but that should not take away from the whole picture: you simply cannot state that Belgium and the Netherlands or their governments ceased to exist in May 1940. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is akin to France. The central column is essentially the last liberation date. So Just like France the 1st column would be for the government and the central one would be for the land itself. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Belgium
Belgium gained its sovereignty in 1830. This is very, very widely referenced, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. Please read the Belgium article: it is actually a Featured article. If you disagree with the very experienced editors at the Belgium article, and you think that Belgium actually "acquired its sovereignty" in 1945, then please discuss it at Talk:Belgium. But unless you do, and find some extraordinarily good external references, then the "1945" date for Belgium's sovereignty is pure WP:OR. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Current Definition created this page :
 * 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
 * Past Definition created this
 * 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, which is generally recognized by the international community through whatever institutions are present at the time.
 * No Definition gave this

Personally I find the oldest one the best, but it changed I believe because people kept on putting in mythical dates. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW several editors... So two = several? The definition as stated specifically mentions occupied countries in WWII would be from its date of liberation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If your having problems with this article (you are) then please help us by working on new definitions that will solve those issues and make sure that editors wont insert dates that don't make sense, create confusion or contradictions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You clearly have not been taking in what we have all been trying to explain to you: it is not up to us to start inventing definitions of when states were formed. In order to be encyclopaedic, we must see how reliable, external sources define when states were formed. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel, because it is totally against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please realize that I am not your enemy. Really I'm not, move past that and realize that I am actually asking for your help! Please contribute to this article by helping us. That is all. Guidance is requested. Please help those of us in the front lines who are trapped in the trenches. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My best advice to you is to stop and listen. Just look at what other editors are saying to you. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not very helpful :-( especially when asking for specific help for this article. Not only that I was basically saying the same thing to you :-( just trying to make it more inclusive and be more polite about it. Definition needed. You don't like the definition then don't say its unencyclopedic work with the other editors and make it encyclopedic! Whats the point of Wikipedia if we don't work together to make this Encyclopedia better? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts!) Temporary military occupation (certainly if there is no annexation) is not loss of sovereignty. Are we going to say that in 1943, the Jews revolted in the German ghetto of Warschau? How can a country which does not have full sovereignty, declare war on a third party? The Japanese accepted the Belgian declaration of war as valid and interned the Belgians they found in Indonesia as war prisoners (the men, even though they had not carried arms) or enemy aliens (women and childeren).

I suppose that is the reason why Austria gets 1955 here? It was indeed annexed by Nazi Germany before 1945, but it really was sovereign again in 1945, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Austria cannot possibly be compared to what happened in the GDR. The date 1955 for Germany has no foundation whatsoever. We must choose between 1949 (when the German Federal Republic was founded) or 1990 with the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany or 1994, when the Soviet Army left (and you probably know what most Germans would prefer). The other occupying armies never left of course, but I suppose they were welcome as liberators, so we forget about them.

However, I would like to remind that Leopold III referred to the American, Canadian, Polish and British armies coming into Belgium not as liberators, but as occupiers, so in order to incorporate that POV ("Allied Occupation of Europe"), we may have to include Leopold's abdication date as an alternative "liberation date". I personally think this whole debate about temporary occupation in times of war is silly. In 1830 the Dutch army were not in Belgium as military occupiers, whatever Napoleon's supporters among the September rebels may have thought. No Belgian today believes that the sovereignty of Belgium was in any way affected by that 1940-1944 occupation, or by the occupation in 1914-1918 for that matter. Both Belgium and the Netherlands still had the majority of their territory free from German occupation in 1940 (of course, the Japanese did change that as far as the Netherlands is concerned, but Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles still continued the war with Germany and Japan). I suppose the whole argument may be different over countries where the monarch and the government constituted themselves prisoner (think that happened in Denmark), but it is up to the editors of Denmark to decide.

The French example bothers me too: the caption on the right explicitly talks about the French départements of Algeria. If that was French territory, it was French territory never occupied by Germany. In fact, Charles De Gaulle not only carried on the war from London, but from the overseas territories and even sent the airforce that joined his side in the Middle East to the Russian front (from October 1944, French airplanes used an airstrip in East Prussia, the first French occupation of German territory since the phoney war and preceding the full liberation of hexagonal France by many months - since the Germans were still holding onto a number of French ports almost until surrender). The overseas argument may in the same way concern the Netherlands, because three of the now Netherlands Antilles islands will become Dutch communes by the end of this year. They still need to decide on which province they will join.

Basically, sovereignty by Belgium was attained either by the Treaty of London, or by the retreat of Dutch forces at the end of 1830, which is what most Belgians say, and what is to be found at Belgium itself. Either will do for me, but the fact that the Belgium article says 1830 is a strong point. The left column, present form of government (federal monarchy) is a bit difficult to specify. The monarchy is from Ju ne ly 21st, 1831. But the federalist charter is being discussed as of this moment. We will probably have to change any entry on that score before the end of the year. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Belgium is not mentioned in our articles on Japan and the War, I have to reference this from the web:. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Addition: this reference was to prove that Belgium did indeed declare war on Japan, on December 20th, 1941.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is mere non sense. Belgium (and all the countries that have been occupied by nazi Germany during WWI) did not aquire their sovereignity after the end of the occupation.  They had already their sovereignity years (or centuries) before.  Pretending the contrary is original research (see WP:NOR) at best.  And sinc I usually try to stay polite, I will not write my profound feeling about this.  I furthermore noticed that the contributor who develops those original ideas is not consistent with himslef, since he left for Albania a sovereignity acquisition date that precedes the end of the nazi occupation of the country.  This approach also leads to curious situations like, for isntance, Luxembourg, where the last significant territorial change is more than one century older than the date of acquisition of sovereignity.  I would suggest that changes of this kind should only be allowed on 1st April every year and removed at midnight the same day. --Lebob-BE (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with most, of course. Now, Luxembourg was actually annexed to Nazi Germany so there may actually be some sense in that case for UKPhoenix79's definition of sovereignty establishment - if you take into account the nazi Hineininterpretierung of history on Luxembourg, "back into the Empire", then you may think you solve POV problems that way. But the people editing at Luxembourg will pobably best know in how far Luxembourg sovereignty was affected. There was a Luxembourg government-in-exile too, the list of countries that recognized the annexation is not very impressive (Vichy France, Japan, Manchukuo, Subhas Chandra Bose's Free India, Italy, and the fascist puppet states of Croatia, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia - I doubt whether if even included Finland and the man with the moustache) and Nazi control over Luxembourg was not so absolute since a very high percentage of Luxembourg young men managed to escape German military service. The problem may be that UKPhoenix79 imagines that all occupied countries were treated the same way and faced the same threat to their sovereignty as Luxembourg. Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, (Free) France and Norway all continued the war against Nazi Germany in some way or other. How illogical it all is, is illustrated by Austria and Germany - if 1955 is OK for Austria because of the end of "occupation" (similar to 1944-45 for Western Europe) then the correct date for Germany is obviously 1994, as that was the date set in 1990 for Soviet troops to leave the former GDR. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't POV on my part in the least! I am only working with the definitions created through much discussion in both of the Archives. I'm surprised that I'm the only one defending this since there were several editors that came up with the current definition. Because the previous one was giving people the reason to put in dates that just didn't make sense. So last liberation date was decided as one of the criteria. So I doubt that anyone disagrees that most of Europe was liberated in 1945 and that isn't OR on my part or anyone else's. So If there is disagreement about the definition please lets figure out a way that we can change the definition to make sure people put up the correct one, for these modern countries, while remembering countries like Egypt. Should we specifically exclude territorial occupation during wars? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with those who say that temporary occupation during WWII does not constitute a loss of sovereignty. In the case of countries like Norway, Belgium and Denmark, the same Sovereign ruled over the country after the war as did when it started... and in the case of Denmark, ruled during it. I could see including a foot note to mention that the country was temporarily occupied by Germany during the War... and perhaps you could argue that sovereignty was resumed in 1945. But to say that these countries were "formed" in 1945 is skewing the facts.  Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Point one is that for some countries the precise end date of occupation or liberation is a matter of POV, but everybody agrees on the repercussions for sovereignty: none. We still do not know when and whether Leopold ever changed his mind on the subject (he had always been a supporter of Belgian neutrality "à outrance"). Switching to Austria, you do not doubt "that anyone disagrees that most of Europe was liberated in 1945" - I hope you realize Austria is one of those countries? Second point is partial occupation. France, demonstrably because of the rest of the table, was only partially occupied. I contend that this was also the case for Belgium and the Netherlands. It was even the case for the United Kingdom. And part of Denmark was occupied not by the Germans, but by the British (Far Oer). In all these cases, the international community at large (see the embassies, see the Japanese acceptance of the Belgian declaration of war) has chosen to ignore any legal challenges to the sovereignty of the (partially) occupied countries. Czechoslovakia (where most, but not all countries at one time during the war decided to switch and ignore Munich) and the Baltics (where the Soviet Union takeover was not recognized by a small number of states) are clearly different.
 * Your rule was: "Acquisition of sovereignty may occur in various ways: ... through the expulsion or surrender of foreign occupying forces (e.g., Kuwait, several European countries after World War 2) It does not say "Sovereignty MUST be deemed lost by the entering of occupying forces", does it? Kuwait and World War II are indeed given as examples, but even Kuwait is doubtful in my mind (I suppose it is just a way to get rid of Iraqi POV). Actually this rule is rather helpful to establish 1945 as sovereignty date for Austria, which most Austrians may agree with because the Austrian state before the Anschluss was already a fascist dictatorship. If the rule is also interpreted to claim the disestablishment of sovereignty, we are getting into hot water, with non-sovereign states declaring war, their army officially occupying part of the other country, forming economic unions with other non-sovereign states, and all this being officially sanctioned, legally binding for the future and even recognized as such by all historians of today. Never mind POV, and WP:NOR, your edits are getting into WP:FRINGE there. Leave it to the writers of the articles to decide the dates, they can best interpret history. Interestingly, almost no historian, past or present, calls Dutch rule over Belgium (1815-1830) an "occupation", but many historians even now call French rule from 1794 to 1814-5 over the areas now corresponding with Belgium "French occupation". It is very difficult for outside readers to use data like that without resorting to original research. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Misnomer
A list of some set of items "by (characteristic X)" implies that they are listed in order by characteristic X. Clicking on a link leading to this article, I assumed that the countries of the world would be listed in order by formation date, either from least to most recent or the reverse. Yet all it is, is yet another listing of countries, by continent and then alphabetically within each continent. It is a list of countries with information about formation but it is by no means a list of countries by formation date. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bump. Anybody with a good connection able to fix this? Crisco_1492 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.91.11.158 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be radically reformed
The current format of this page is untenable, being up for deletion and subject to constant edit warring and POV-pushing. I propose a radical reformat. We should acknowledge that the good-faith attempt at merging the previous articles List of countries by date of statehood and List of countries by date of independence has so far failed to produce a list with any semblance of stability, yet the information contained in those lists was useful and encyclopedic.

I propose this list be reformed and renamed to List of significant nationhood events (I got the phrase "significant nationhood event" from the CIA World Factbook FAQs where it addresses how "Independence" dates are established). I envision something like this (I got these events from the talk page archive): A sortable wikitable will allow someone to sort by date or country, if they so desire. To keep the list from being too long, only currently internationally recognized independent countries, and recognized predecessors should be included, and all dates must be verified from reliable sources. Thus, for example, no including dates for the various First Nations (unverifiable, not internationally recognized as independent) nor the Republic of Texas (was not a "predecessor" to the United States). DHowell (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I was going to suggest the same idea, but I love the visual aid you created. By including all the dates that can be considered its formations should help a lot... But what about other nations like Egypt? What about nations that were once absorbed then freed like Ireland? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some dates for Egypt and Ireland to the above table. What do you think? DHowell (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wondering how to make BCE dates work... but I don't think that the easter rebellion or the 1642 Irish rebellion would count as formation dates... We have to be careful about this... Would Rome count for Italy? If so does it count for France and Spain also? So does the 1st king of Ireland count? Was his reign the precedent of the modern country created? Or would that be considered an ancient country that is of little relation to the modern one today... If so then how can Egypt count... I hope you don't mind but I have removed 3 dates from your list, I would remove Egypt but it is really informative of how to use negative dates. Is the 1st date given for a country that declared independence that date, or should it be the first time it was colonized, invaded or had self rule (even if it has no connection to the modern country that occupies its territory)? Any feedback on my edits? Should we implement this before the AfD is finished or after? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're going to have 30+ rows to reflect each year in which one or more new states entered the United States? &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I hope not... We might have to make some sensible guidelines for this before we implement it. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with getting agreement on those! &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The three predecessor articles to this one were all periodically subject to disputes, the very existance of three different articles was an effect of the editor's inability to reach a consensus on the issue (one even being named "Alternative list of ..."). However the lists did achieve some semblance of stability mostly because they were seen as so difficult to work with that a lot of editors just decided to ignore them. One of the main problems of those lists were that they invited to constant fights over what country was older than the other as they were collated according to dates and not countries. Another problem was that one country was listed several places on the list. So if you wanted to find the formation date(s) for a given country you would have to read through the entire list to find them all. I.e. if a person found 17. May 1814: Norwegian constitution day he would have to search through the entire list both up and down to find the other significant dates for Norway. So the present list solves two important problems: it lists all the relevant dates conserning a country in one place under that country's entry. It collates the entries alphabetically so the urge to get your country at the top of the list is less. There are still problems with the list. However they seem to stem from individual editors wanting to tweek the list and definitions to fit their view of the world or the form of state and country formation they know best. Many of teh suggestions given here fall into that category. Of course the list also is a magnet for trolls and worse. It is important to note that none of the countries in the world have been formed in an identical way. I have tried to keep an overall picture which demands wide definitions and interpretations based on the spirit and intent of the list and definitions: To give a short description of the formation of all present countries. As the above debates show that has not been the intent of all involved. Disputes such as the one on the UK could easily be solved by following the solution given in that country' main article. The main article of a countrry will most often be based on a much wider consensus. In stead individual editors started comparing the dates for the UK with other countries and felt that their country wasn't presented as being as old as it should be. It is easy to avoid these things if we all keep a cool head and agree that the main articles hold authority over this one. I suggest to keep on working at a slow and steady pace on this list and eventually it might reach an acceptable place, however I fear it will never be very good.Inge (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One suggestion is to combine all the event boxes into one called "Formation dates" as many of the countries do not fit the present scheme.

(The particular countries and dates used in my example are ramdom and my skills with tables are not the best...)

This will reduce the number of definitions to argue about as all formation dates stipulated in the main article of the country can be entered without having to conform to a standard that does not fit all. The dates of territorial modification have been left out, but can be included if the event is particularily important to the formation, in the present list insignificant events are included. This suggestion will be easier to maintain and keep the good solutions from the present article.Inge (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * pointed me to the direction of this article. I've built a few articles into WP:FL related to countries, including List of autonomous areas by country, List of unrecognized countries, and List of countries without armed forces, so hopefully my experience will help advise my opinion on this issue. Basically, I like the ideas presented above, but the bottom line is that this article has lots of information - too much information for one article, I believe, and it should be split into several articles instead of shoving it all into tables on here. For instance, Birth of current form of government, Date of acquisition of sovereignty, and Date of most recent significant territorial modification could each be split into a separate article, so we'd have at least 3 articles created from this one article. Gary King (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think dividing the article might be a good idea, but only if it is done according to geography. Then it would be less dates on each article to fight about. But to have one list for each possible criteria for the formation of a state would just reinstate the situation as it was before. Ceveral competing lists all claiming to have the answer to what country is oldest. Some would be well maintained and others would be the project of one or two. Trolls could tour the different articles until thay find a place that lets them get away with it and so on...Inge (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that all of the countries are secretly scheming to make life hard for us Wikipedians with these articles ;) Gary King (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me that if you were going to order countries by date of independence, that date would be the most recent unchallenged date of sovereignty of a nation in its present form. for example, the date for Egypt I would say is 11 Sep 1971, when the United Arab Republic was officially dissolved (having effectively ended a decade earlier), and the Arab Republic of Egypt was formed in its place. for Montenegro, it would be 15 Jun 2006, when Serbia formally recognized Montenegrin independence (almost 2 weeks after the actual declaration of independence). 11:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudge67 (talk • contribs)

Sort by date/alphabet
I don't get it. Shouldn't these countries be sorted by the date they were created? As of now it is just a list of countries, sorted alphabetically, including information on when they were formed. It's not a list of countries by formation dates. 129.177.126.72 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, and I think nobody gets that. The problem is, however, that it has proven impossible to agree on one definition of "formation date", so while originally attempting to be truly a list by formation dates, this is hardly an option anymore. If you hold that this means that the article should be moved, or even deleted, then you certainly have a case for it, although lengthy debates would probably ensue in either case. -- Jao (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this was already a major point in the most recent deletion debate. -- Jao (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some comments
Well, I was going to ask here why there is a POV tag at the top, rather than at each controversial entry, but reading a little more it becomes apparent that I'm stepping into a minefield :(

So how about breaking down the table, which looks great btw, into individual entries for each country so that nation-forming events, de facto and de jure dates and territorial modifications can be addressed individually?

Now to specifics: if the name is "sovereign states by formation date", how does Denmark get in there as being formed in 1945? What about the longest current unbroken string of monarchist rule and the way the sovereign kept on being the sovereign and rode around Copenhagen every day during the war? Maybe there's something wrong with the column title?

And column 7, "Date of most recent significant territorial modification" - well, isn't any territorial modification significant? It sure is for the people living on that territory. Off the top of my head, I can think of Denmark losing a big chunk of South Jylland (Schleswig-Holstein if you will), Finland losing half the Kola Peninsula and Poland basically moving completely back and forth into different spots as being "significant", depending on your definition.

Those are my impressions, I'm not familiar with the article history, hope it doesn't blow up in my face :) Franamax (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note this section, which come to think of it is what got me here. That appears to refer specifically to this list and on its face is unencyclopedic, advice is appreciated. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Eritrea
I rarely edit anything beyond sports and pop culture articles, so hopefully I won't embarass myself... but didn't Eritrea declare independence from Ethiopia in 1993? The article says Italy, and seems to have said so for a long time. Am I missing something here? Zagalejo^^^ 04:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An error surely, and I've changed it. Fribbler (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
~ Even if Kosovo were internationally recognized, it could still hardly be called "sovereign". Thoughts? Kazeunlimited (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixing terms
Hi everyone. The title of this article is "List of sovereign states by formation date", but the first two lines state that "Nation-building is a long evolutionary process. It is therefore practically impossible to come up with a single date for a nation's "birth"." 'State' and 'nation' are not synonyms, and the conflation of these two terms is itself a nationalist practise. Since (a) the title of the article refers to 'sovereign states; (b) the history of a 'nation' is likely to be very different than the institutional forms that the nation has been subject to; and (c) in any case the origin of a state is much easier to identify than that of a nation, I suggest that we eliminate all references to nationhood in this article and stick with states. – SJL 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Headline text
Why can't you guys make a list of states ordered by their dates of independence? I looked for one and I hoped that wikipedia had one, but looks like it doesn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.213.151 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should. Feel free to make one. WP:Bold. -114.91.96.194 (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested merge
A merge has been suggested for this page with List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood. I am surprised to find no other discussion, not even a reasoning offered by User:Phlegm Rooster, who nominated the merge. So, I guess I have the first word.

Anyway, my thought is that this page looks much nicer than the other, and is more well-organized. A merge seems the obvious thing to do, as the content overlaps so extensively. There is one problem, however - this page seems restricted only to states currently in existence, while the other page's list includes former states as well. I think their inclusion is essential (if we wanted to have a separate list that only lists current states that's fine too), and if we include them, we might as well create another data column for the date & name/description of the event in which the state in question lost sovereignty or ceased to be. LordAmeth (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Issues of sovereignty, independence and liberation are always controversial. Trying to discuss the dates when these event happened for all countries in the world ON ONE PAGE is doomed to fail.

My, humble suggestion is that we simply look at the individual articles for countries in the list. They always contain these dates, which have been reached thru lengthy discussions. Apupunchau (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * An exception to policy should be established before doing this, IMO. (WP:V: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources."). It is common for List of ... articles to violate that policy, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To Wtmitchell - if the linked article contains the required RS, that is a sufficient source for this one (IMO anyway). Of course, an explicit in-line link sourcing a Wikipedia article itself is just not on.
 * My major concern with this article itself is exemplified by the entry for Denmark, which to me fails to reflect any true formation date. The Danish monarchy is one of the world's longest continuing sovereign lineages. The pertinent facts noted herein are so recent as to make a mockery of that history.
 * Considering the target merge-article, it is also fraught with problems - I'm having problems tracing even the provenance of the "compass"-Germanies, Germany itself seems to spring forth whole, wasn't there a Holy Roman Empire in there?
 * This whole area is a minefield of POV - but I would be happy to see a merge which better presented more accurate information. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your objection in para 1&mdash;you're saying that it is OK for wikipedia editors to source info from wikipedia articles but that it is not OK for them to admit that they are doing so. However, it is long-established policy that WP articles may not be used as sources. It is also long-established practice for List of ... articles to ignore this (many of them, that is&mdash;some do cite reliable supporting sources). -- List of sovereign states by formation date‎
 * Actually, I am saying that it is OK to make a statement of fact in one article when the statement contains a wikilink to another article containing a RS which confirms that statement of fact. For instance, I should be able to insert into any en:wiki article the statement "Canada, which became a nation in 1867..." without needing to include the citation to the BNA document which proves it so. As a further instance, I recently removed a reference in a town article sourcing the fact that a subway station was handicap-accessible, since the linked article for the subway station itself had the necessary reference. I'm not positive on this - do you think that's the right way to go? Franamax (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless & until an assertion made in an article is challenged,it's a judgment call. WP:V says, among other things:
 * "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
 * "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources."
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
 * A wikipedia editor is free to make an assertion in an article, with or without mentioning a wikilinked page containing a relevant cite, and without citing a supporting source, so long as the assertion contains no direct quote and editor's judgment is that the assertion is unlikely to be challenged. Such an unsupported assertion may be removed or challenged by another editor. If an assertion is challenged, the burden is on the editor who added it (or on other editors who wish to prevent its removal) to cite a reliable supporting source. Such a cite needs to be placed in the article containing the assertion. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, mentioning and wikilinking a wikipedia article which purports to cite a reliable source is not sufficient. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I see why it would be bad to use wikipedia as a reference for wikipedia. However, note on top of the list could inform people that the list is a way to organize information found in individual articles. Apupunchau (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my line of reasoning on this is that if you have verified a source in a wikilinked article, you should be free to repeat the verified fact in a summary article without slavishly copying the individual sources - the "principle of simplicity". Boracay Bill is correct that if the statement is challenged in any particular article, rather than argue "well, there is a RS elsewhere", the solution is to (verify and) copy over the source from the other article. My argument is that propagating verified facts through multiple articles doesn't require cite-copying - unless there is a challenge. And of course, one can not form a citation where the source is Wikipedia itself - all that counts are the underlying sources. Franamax (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines
I've reverted this edit, which sought to add December 6, 1898 (I've reformated that date to be WP:MOS compliant) as the date of the birth of the current form of government of the Philippines by the event of establishment of the First Philippine Republic by the Philippine Declaration of Independence. The so-called "First Philippine Republic" never functioned as the government of the Philippines. During the period when that entity existed, the Philippines was under U.S. sovereignty. As I understand it&mdash;

(This is a bit of a work in progress, being updated from time to time. In the following, points relevant to the First Philippine Republic are indented one level.)


 * Pre-1898 (ignoring a British occupation of the Philippines during the Seven Years War) the Philippines was under Spanish sovereignty.
 * The Katipunan revolution led to the Tejeros Convention where, at San Francisco de Malabon, Cavite, on March 22, 1897, the first presidential and vice presidential elections in Philippine history were held&mdash;although only the Katipuneros (members of the Katipunan) were able to take part, and not the general populace. A later meeting of the revolutionary government established there, held on November 1, 1897 at Biak-na-Bato in the town of San Miguel de Mayumo in Bulacan, established the Republic of Biak-na-Bato. The republic had a constitution drafted by Isabelo Artacho and Felix Ferrer and based on the first Cuban Constitution (see ). This government proved nonviable and the Philippines remained under Spanish sovereignty.
 * Other failed failed revolts against Spain also took place while the Philippines was under Spanish soverignty.
 * The Pact of Biak-na-Bato signed on December 14, 1897, created a truce to end the Katipunan Revolution. Emilio Aguinaldo and other leaders of the revolution went into voluntary exile abroad. Not all the revolutionary generals complied with the treaty. One, General Francisco Makabulos, established a Central Executive Committee to serve as the interim government until a more suitable one was created. Armed conflicts resumed, and Spaniards continued the arrest and torture of those suspected of banditry.


 * In April of 1898, the Spanish-American war erupted. With the Spanish-American War ongoing, and the Philippines still under Spanish soverignty:
 * Encouraged by the Americans, Aguinaldo breached his truce with the Spanish, returning to the Philippines to resume the revolution.
 * On May 24, 1898, Aguinaldo issued a decree formally establishing a Dictatorial Government.
 * On June 12, 1898, an Act of Declaration of Philippine Independence was signed by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista as War Counsellor and Special Delegate designated by the Dictatorial Government.
 * On September 15, 1898, the Malolos Congress convened.
 * On July 23, 1898, because of opposition to Aguinaldo's decision towards a dictatorial rule by Apolinario Mabini, Aguinaldo established a revolutionary government.
 * On September 29, 1898, the Malolos Congress ratified the Philippine Declaration of Independence.
 * On January 20, 1899, the Malolos Congress enacted the Malolos Constitution.


 * On December 10, 1898, sovereignty passed from Spain to the U.S. with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, concluding the Spanish-American War. During the transitional period following the conclusion of the war, the Philippines was governed by a military governor under wartime powers of the US President.
 * On February 4, 1899, Aguinaldo issued a proclamation ordering and commanding, "That peace and friendly relations with the Americans be broken and that the latter be treated as enemies, within the limits prescribed by the laws of war. ..."
 * On February 4, 1899, General hostilities between Filipino and U.S. forces in the Philippine-American War commenced.
 * On June 2, 1899, the Malolos Congress enacted a Declaration of War against the United States.


 * On March 16, 1900, U.S. president William McKinley established the Taft Commission, which acted as the legislature of the Philippines, then known as The Philippine Islands, under the sovereign control of the United States during the Philippine-American War.
 * On March 23, 1902, Aguinaldo was captured
 * On April 1, 1902, Aguinaldo swore an oath accepting the authority of the United States over the Philippines and pledging his allegiance to the American government. Three weeks later he publicly called on his followers to lay down arms. Hostilities continued.


 * On July 1, 1902, the Philippine Organic Act confirmed McKinley's Executive Order establishing the Philippine Commission and stipulated that a legislature would be established composed of a lower house, the Philippine Assembly, which would be popularly elected, and an upper house consisting of the Philippine Commission.
 * On July 4, 1902, Theodore Roosevelt, who had succeeded to the U.S. Presidency after the assassination of President McKinley on September 5, 1901 unilaterally ended the Philippine-American war, proclaiming a full and complete pardon and amnesty to all persons in the Philippine archipelago who had participated in the conflict.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Philippines had continued to be governed by a military governor under wartime powers of the US President during the Philippine-American War. With the end of the war, the office of military governor was abolished on July 4, 1902 by US presidential proclamation, being replaced by civil government organized by the Philippine Commission, operating under authority of the Philippine Organic Act.
 * On August 29, 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) came into force, making some changes in governmental structure and declaring a US commitment to grant independence to the Philippines.
 * The Philippine Independence Act, approved on March 24, 1934, provided for self-government of the Philippines and a path to Filipino independence.
 * A Philippine constitution was ratified on May 14, 1935. This provided for inauguration of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, still under US sovereignty.
 * Under Japanese occupation during WW-II, a constitution dated January 1, 1943 was used. During this period, Manuel L. Quezon headed the Commonwealth of the Philippines government in exile. Sergio Osmeña became president of the Commonwealth on Quezon's death in 1944, returning to the Philippines the same year with General Douglas MacArthur and the liberation forces.
 * On July 4, 1946, the US and the Philippines signed the Treaty of Manila, a treaty of general relations which provided for the recognition of the independence of the Republic of the Philippines and the relinquishment of American sovereignty over the Philippine Islands.
 * On January 17, 1973, the Philippine government was reorganized under a new constitution as the Republic of the Philippines.
 * Corazon Aquino, swept into power by the People Power Revolution, proclaimed the 1986 Provisional “Freedom” Constitution on March 25, 1986.
 * On February 2, 1987, the Philippine government was reorganized under a new constitution, still named the Republic of the Philippines.

New Discussion
A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversion to earlier content
While Dan the duck's drastic change was probably well-intentioned, by overlaying the identical content created at List of countries by statehood, Dan lost a lot of valuable data, including references. I've therefore reverted to the earlier version, despite its deficiencies. Goustien (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Why are Abkhazia and South Ossetia on this list? They have even less recognition than Kosovo and several other countries, which are not on this list. Biosci01 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, those should not have been added but be in the same article as the others as said in the intro. Obviously someone took it upon them self to by-pass the said criteria. It should be corrected. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Birth of the current form of government in the Philipppines
The Philippines article identifies its type of government as "Unitary presidential constitutional republic". The country has a complicated governmental history (see above). The entries for the Philippines in the Birth of current form of government columns of the table in this article have a complicated edit history. This recent edit set those entries to wikilink Philippine Declaration of Independence and to assert that this document established the First Philippine Republic. Actually, the wikilinked document established (re-established after a period of suspension, actually) an insurgency which established (initially) a dictatorial government while the country was under Spanish sovereignty. The declared governmental character of this insurgency changed over a period of months from dictatorial to revolutionary and then to a constitutional republic. Meanwhile, sovereignty over the Philippines passed from Spain to the United States. The insurgency failed, with the genenerally accepted date of its failure being in 1902. The Philippines was governed as a US Territory until May 14, 1935, when it ratified a constitution establishing the Republic of the Philippines. Shortly thereafter, once officers were elected, the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines was inaugurated, still under U.S. Sovereignty. The Philippines became an independent sovereign state on July 4, 1946. The country's constitution has been rewritten several times since then, but it still does style itself The Republic of the Philippines. I have edited the article to assert that the 1935 constitution was the document establishing the birth of current form of government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The asserted achievement of sovereignty by the Philippines in 1898
I have again removed "1898-06-12 The First Philippine Republic declares itself independent form the Spanish Empire" from the Date of acquisition of sovereignty column of the table. The insertion cited [Date of acquisition of sovereignty this] as a supporting source. That source does support the assertion that a declaration o findependence was proclaimed on that date, but also says, "For most countries, this entry gives the date that sovereignty was achieved and from which nation, empire, or trusteeship. For the other countries, the date given may not represent 'independence' in the strict sense, but rather some significant nationhood event such as the traditional founding date or the date of unification, federation, confederation, establishment, fundamental change in the form of government, or state succession. Dependent areas include the notation 'none' followed by the nature of their dependency status. (emphasis supplied)" I have looked, and I have found no reliable and verifiable source supporting an assertion that this June 12, 1898 declaration of independence resulted in an acquisition of either independence or sovereignty. This matter is currently being disputed on the Timeline of Philippine sovereignty talk page, and is discussed there in more detail. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The CIA Factbook, Library of Congress [], even the Government of the Philippines explicitly list the date of independence as June 12, 1898 with the additional footnote that the United States recognized independence on July 4, 1946. I think it is pretty much established that both countries recognize both dates so I suggest placing both if them.


 * Stop Milking the issue.


 * Ang taong nagbubulagan, kahit ilang salamin pa ang ibigay, eh bulag pa rin --61.153.149.205 (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The info at that link to the 2006 LOC country report is interesting: "The Philippines attained independence from Spain on June 12, 1898, and from the United States on July 4, 1946." I read that as implying that Spain's cessation of the Philippines to the U.S. via the Treaty of Paris (1898) was invalid. This is the first source which I have seen which explicitly supported the assertion that the Philippines Declaration of Independence resulted in the attainment of independence from Spain&mdash;and it comes from a heavyweight source. I've sent an inquiry to the Library of Congress about this, but I don't have high expectations of receiving an enlightening response.


 * Neutral point of view says that articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Considering the weightiness of the source, and absent a post-2006 revision, I'd say that this deserves mention in articles relating to Philippine sovereignty and independence, alongside mention of contradictory sources saying that sovereignty passed from Spain to the U.S. via the Treaty of Paris (1898).


 * The CIA factbook is one contradictory source, saying here, "The Philippine Islands became a Spanish colony during the 16th century; they were ceded to the US in 1898 following the Spanish-American War." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Errors!
This page is full of them! -- For example, if you go to the Europe section, and scroll down to Hungary, it lists Hungary's birth of current form of government as 1001, but it's date of acquisition of sovereignty as 1991... Surely this must be reversed?? There are many more examples -MrGulli (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom
Please do not add unsourced nonsense to the UK section. By very wide consensus here at Wikipedia the UK was formed in either 1707 or 1801. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unsourced by any means, please see Talk:List of countries by formation dates/Archive 2 and Talk:List of countries by formation dates/Archive 2. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you wish to repeatedly break official Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH, then that is your problem, and you will have to face the consequences. But you are very well aware that your wildly "creative" edits to this article are totally at odds with the widely maintained consensus at the United Kingdom article. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounded rather insulting :-( I have not been creative only stated the obvious fact. We need to create an even standard for all states, so if you change the definition of when a country gains its sovereignty then you have to change all of them to fit those standards. Doing this with your belief changes other countries respectively. I believe the one as stated works out rather well. So I have used the USA to show how those changes just don't work since Americas dates are rather fixed and verifiable. So if you make 1707 or 1801 the date of sovereignly then 1898 would be the same for the USA and this doesnt work. So we have to work in those confines. Please find a definition that will work for both the UK and the US that wont create silly dates. Personally I believe the dates since the last conquest of another nation makes sense for countries that decide to merge politically, if the form of government doesn't change. This way the US doesn't change its date to the most recent merge and the UK would have to date back to the last conquest of England and Scotland. Though to be fair I guess we should have the California Republic, the Republic of Texas, the Republic of Hawaii & the Vermont Republic last conquest also. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Silly dates? You are becoming the master of adding silly dates to this page: eg, you again tried to add the totally unsourced 1357 as the formation of Scotland. Nowhere else is this date given as the foundation of that country, per WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the section your having problems with: ''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:'' It is going from last date of independence from a foreign power. Also your comment ''rm per official Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH; and rm nonsense: did Denmark suddenly not become a country while under Nazi occupation? No. So why Scotland stop being a country while under foreign occ?'' Are you suggesting that Scotland is under foreign occupation??? Also why are you claiming that this is OR?? It is no such thing, it is far from that. Are you disagreeing with what I stated above? If you merge two or more independent countries and create a new government like what was created in the Articles of Confederation or later create a new form of government under the United States Constitution then yes that is correct. But if you do not change the form of government then the state never changed only expanded heck the 1st Parliament of Great Britain never even bothered to hold new elections for the former English members of Parliament. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * You know fine well what I meant: you are tring to claim that 1357 is the "Date of acquisition of sovereignty" of Scotland, merely because that is when the Second War of Scottish Independence ended. Nowhere in any reliable, external source (per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY and WP:OR) is 1357 given as the date of acquisition of sovereignty of Scotland.


 * The United Kingdom is a precisely defined legal entity, founded by law, in a series of parliamentary statutes. You cannot start inserting invented dates prior to the foundation of the UK in 1707. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I really didn't understand what you meant, you'll just have to believe me on that one. Why all the hostility? Please read the definitions. The reason that we don't put down 1st union of a country is because there have been many people putting the date of countries down as being in 3,000 bce which makes little sense. So putting last liberation (for lack of better term) is a means to avoid these dates. Scotland was last occupied at that date, it is a fact not OR. If you want me to give it sources I will but seams rather redundant when linking to the article itself. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland united in 1707 that is undeniable and a given fact. But the Government did not change with that union. It was a Constitutional Monarchy before Ruled by two Parliaments under the authority of Bill of Rights/Claim of Rights and changed into a Constitutional Monarchy before Ruled by one Parliament under the authority of Bill of Rights/Claim of Rights. That is also a fact. What is in dispute? The name of the nation changed and a union was created, the government was the same and its foundation was 1689. How am I wrong? Please answer me instead of avoiding this. Do you really propose that America's government was also founded by the Newlands Resolution in 1898 because that is the same argument 2 separate governments united into one. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fully understand your position. The definition of birth of current form of government is:
 * Birth of current form of government: 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.


 * The cogent words are  date at which current country appeared as a unified political entity  where the "current country" of the United Kingdom was not established until 1707. The Bill of Rights/Claim of Right established constitutional monarchy and the rights of parliament for England and Scotland, but not for a country not then in existence. Bill Reid | Talk 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The entity "created" in 1707 was a continuation of the English state. So we should indeed use Athelstan, since he was King of England and ruled the rest of Great Britain. There is continuity of statehood, through the Kingdom of England, from Athelstan to the present day. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And your reliable, external source for that is? Per WP:VERIFY. Otherwise that is simply your opinion, and if added to any article would be a breach of official Wikipedia policy WP:OR. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, take your pick. How about the Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens? Or if you prefer something a little easier to digest in one sitting, there's the Guinness Book of Kings, Rulers & Statesmen. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Tharky. The UK's first monarch was Queen Anne. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But we're not talking about the "UK" as such, but of continuity of statehood. TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But we are talking, expressly, about the United Kingdom here. It is written in big, bold type on the article. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So if a state changes its name, it becomes a new state? Didn't happen with Myanmar (Burma) according to this list, anyway - i.e. its independence date is given as 1948, that of Burma. TharkunColl (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * England did not "change its name" in 1707 (England still exists: it is known as, well... England!) England entered into a statutory political union with its next door neighbour: Scotland. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sound repetitative. England didn't become larger & get renamed Great Britain/UK. England & Scotland (1707) fused together as Great Brtain. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not a merger of equals, but an effective takeover of one by the other. TharkunColl (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And your reliable, external source for that is? Per WP:VERIFY. Otherwise that is simply your opinion, and if added to any article would be a breach of official Wikipedia policy WP:OR. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced, Tharky. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the date still 1707 though? Seriously, everyone knows 1801 is the founding date of the UK, this fact has nothing to do with the founding of GB! --Camaeron (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I intitially called for 1801. But, the majority preferred 1707. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Camaeron - you may find the following quote of interest "Acts of Union 1707

Acts passed by the Scottish and English Parliaments to implement the Treaty of Union. Resulted in the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain." That from the site http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/01_background.html
 * Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I still believe the difference between UK of GB and UK of GB and NI ought to be noted! --Camaeron (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand where all you guys are coming from. Anyone who comes on this website looking for the formation date of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be looking for 20th century date, sure enough, but anyone looking for the formation date of the United Kingdom will be looking for a date from a different century altogether, and 'United Kingdom' is all you have down as a name.

The problem is that this is not a case of a country detaching itself from Yugoslavia and wanting to keep its name. We have a state forming in 1707 called Great Britain which is NOW equated with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland created the following century which is NOW equated with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why do the general population equate all of these? Because people in general still within the UK perceive a continuity in terms of national identity. This article does not take this readily confessed sense of continuity into account.

Despite changes of nomenclature and territory, parliamentary system, ethnicity, even certain people in Northern Ireland perceive themselves to be part of a national identity which they call Britishness that began, not in the 20th century but in the 18th.

If you can understand where I'm coming from, one has to take more into account in order to produce statistics such as the date of formation of the 'United Kingdom' which are actually meaningful. Leaving a blank box for date of aquisition of sovereignty is simply not good enough in my view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.26.136 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

UK politics
My two cents on what the date should be

I am likely going to get crucified for suggesting this, but this is what I think the official birthday of the UK should be: December 25th, 1066, 12 pm. (May I have a cigarette before you pull the trigger?;)

That is the date and time at which William the Conqueror was crowned in London (still the UK capitol and center of finance) in Westminster Abbey (still the epicenter for national heroes, royalty, and second only to Canterbury in her importance in terms of the Anglican Church (largest religious group and most prominent.) William the Conqueror, in turn, was the founder of the Plantagenet line: a legacy of monarchs in a line that is nearly unbroken up to the present-Her Majesty may more properly claim direct descent in the male line from the Hanoverian George I, but she can still trace her line back by some means to William. The Plantagenet line has ties to the now defunct throne of Scotland (Mary Queen of Scots, through Margaret Tudor, then Margaret Tudor through her great- grandfather Edward III) Ireland (Strongbow incident paved the way for Anglo Normans and first forays into colonization) and Wales (Edward II conquered the land, thus meeting aforementioned criteria.) Prior to William's crowning, the British Isles were highly factionalized with little warring states more reminiscent of the Dark Ages than the dawning Middle Ages-nobody was interested in uniting much of anything. It wasn't until afterwards did that start to change-the ball began to roll towards creating the UK as she stands now.

The Act of Union of 1707 certainly "united" the crowns under a single English crown, but not before everything aligned to make this possible (Ireland, for example, had already gone through the Ulster Plantation and multiple nasty events with the Tudors, Scotland was already for the most part united with the crown as soon as James succeeded Elizabeth, and Wales ceased having monarchs at the end of the fourteenth century and largely was ruled from London.) Cornwall had become so absorbed by the English that the Cornish language would go extinct 70 years afterwards. The office of prime minister was created around 1707 but it is notable that only in the last century or so has this truly shifted to become the head of government (and thus far not one has been a Scot or Welshman and certainly not Irish.) The head of state may have devolved into a constitutional monarchy before that but it still guaranteed political power nonetheless. Bottom line? William's crowning caused a domino effect. England may only be a portion of the UK, but it DID take over everything else around it starting with William's line and it IS the dominant body in the UK going back that far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkittie5460 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The office of prime minister [..] [has] become the head of government (and thus far not one has been a Scot or Welshman and certainly not Irish
 * Scotland - Gordon Brown
 * Wales - David Lloyd George
 * Ireland - Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington
 * Don't know what else to say... -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the person before you, Phoenix. December 1066 sounds right to me. Plus, consider this:

George-Very good, correct on that one...moving on....

Wellesley

The prime minister did not "wear the pants" in government until AFTER Wellesley's term: Victoria was only just starting to emerge. Furthermore, he is a poor choice to represent the Irish: Sure, he was born in Dublin, but he was a born and bred member of the Ascendancy-he is about as Irish as a steak and kidney pie dyed green. He spent a good deal of his life away from Ireland and per the practice of the time did not "mingle with the commoners(it was common to be born in Leeds, for example, but walk, talk, think and all but dance and sing as the elite did in London.) The man even distanced himself vigorously from anything having to do with Ireland all his life and history does not note him as a torch bearer in particular for the Irish Catholics who worked his land. (He even referred to Ireland as a barn and indirectly suggested the Irish were "horses"-beasts of burden to ride.) Furthermore, given the current situation I would be completely shocked if a modern p.m. was elected from Northern Ireland-he'd almost certainly be Protestant, almost certainly be an Oxbridge clone, and his election could make the Good Friday Agreement go down the toilet, and lest I forget the Orange Order might do something incredibly stupid forcing the remnants of the IRA to do something even stupider. Brown:

Brown is more properly an Anglo-Scot, at least paternally. It is also interesting that, in all this time, a Scot by any measure was chosen now when the question of independence from the UK has arisen. It is also further interesting that, when a King is crowned, (the King himself a national symbol) he is crowned heir apparent in a castle in Wales, and uses a Destiny Stone from Scotland as part of the rite of coronation (itself very likely an ancient stone akin to the Irish lia fail.) These in themselves spell out clearly that England is the dominant kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowkittie5460 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You ARE the person before me!?!?! If you don't like Gordon Brown then how about The Earl of Bute, its hard to get more Scottish then him and that was in 1762! As for The Duke of Wellington no matter who I state every Prime Minister was a Protestant so I cannot claim an Irish Catholic since the closest that the UK has gotten is Tony Blair and his conversion happened after his retirement and only this year! Wellington was a man of his time and a product of disenfranchisement of most of the Irish population though he did fight hard to get a Catholic Emancipation Bill passed and even fought a duel over it. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Actually, that was my younger sister, borrowing my laptop (she doesn't have a page yet and has been staying with me, lying in since she smashed up her leg.)

2) 3rd Earl of Bute: He was born in Edinburgh. Edinburgh had been used as a secondary seat of power by England for some time by the time of his birth. It was to become headquarters for imported English lords and greedy lairds by the time he became a man, and he was as you say, a product of his time: education was at Eton and on the continent, not at St. Andrew's. (The man couldn't speak a word of his tenants' Scots Gaelic either and probably could quote more of the Faerie Queene than he could Blind Harry.)

He also got his job through schmoozing the king (p.m. was still not the seat of power under George III or his father by any means; ask any Frenchmen who had to fight the French and Indian War and refer to what I said earlier about Wellesley) and furthermore it made perfect sense for him to be made p.m. at the time: George III ascended the throne not long after the Second Jacobite Rebellion and during the Clearances with the Highlands-what better way to send a message to the crofters who was boss than to have a p.m. whose family supported his father at Culloden? (Equally I have yet to see evidence of him lifting a finger to stop the thousands of people losing their land, culture, and home to the whims of "factors.")

3) Good on Wellesley. However, why is it that there is a giant statue of Daniel O'Connell in Dublin today and not him? Why do portions of Belfast have O'Connell's image plastered on the walls STILL and not once has Wellesley been given much credit? O'Connell might not have been able to do it without Wellesley's influence, but it was O'Connell, not Wellesley, who was fighting until the day he died for freedom. (He reminds me of LBJ: LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act not out of any sense of altruism or goodness, but to prevent more chaos-this is why men like O'Connell and King are revered and men like Wellesley and Johnson are just footnotes.) Furthermore, Wellesley's son didn't seem to do very much when the Great Famine struck, now did he?

4) A Catholic has not, cannot, and shall never be elected to the office of p.m.-that is the point. Dominant religion is Anglicanism. Dominant crown is England's.--Shadowkittie5460 (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points were that only the English could ever be PM's and I have proven your hypothesis incorrect. Weather you believe they are True representations of the people of their time is debatable. They are not representative of people today and the nations that exist now; and frankly how could they be? Your point on #4, while it is true that it is constitutionally currently imposable for the sovereign to be Catholic, there is no hindrance on the Ministers or the Prime Minister to be a catholic. We can thank many politicians in the 1800's for that right. But this is not a Blog it is a Talk page for the betterment of this article and we have already gone rather far off track. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. But I still say December 25th, 1066 and then-as-now politicians like to play by the numbers: My money is that the man that shall follow Brown will be white, male, and has  excellent odds of being Protestant and born or raised in England.


 * I'm still trying to come to terms with general level of nonsense amongst the arguments put forward for 1066 as the founding point of the UK but i'l take issue with this one particular claim which is spectacularly anti-factual:


 * "The office of prime minister was created around 1707 but it is notable that only in the last century or so has this truly shifted to become the head of government (and thus far not one has been a Scot "


 * What absolute ignorance. the 20th century alone saw seven prime ministers who were either Scottish outright or of Scottish descent who's families Scottish origins were still within living memory. They are as follows :


 * Tony Blair
 * Harold MacMillan
 * Lord Alec Douglas-Home
 * Arthur Bonar Law
 * Alec Balfour
 * Ramsay MacDonald
 * Henry Campbell Bannerman.


 * I suppose it would be too much to expect one to try and achieve a basic acquaintance with the facts before putting forward an opinion but then that would get in the way of pleasant delusions of English greatness and empire within the isles rather than the reality of England being put out of existence having come under the rule of the Scots (and having previously been ruled by the Welsh Tudors, the Norman Plantaganets and their offshoots and the Danes - indeed one most go back to the early 11th century for the last time the English were ruled by an English family) and since then have been part of a united kingdom in which they are the biggest group by numbers alone while being vastly outdone by the Scots who were far and away the most influential group in the formation of the british empire considering the proportion of the British population they formed.78.144.142.168 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "My money is that the man that shall follow Brown will be white, male, and has excellent odds of being Protestant and born or raised in England."


 * Could be although the likelies candidate at the moment - David Cameron - is (and his very name gives it away) a Scot as well being born to an Aberdeen father, who was born to an Aberdeen father and who ultimately has origins in a crofting family in the Inverness area but lets not let that get in the way (alongside the various facts youve already had thrown at you to disprove your wishful thinking on English dominance) of pretending that he's a pure blooded Englishman and one who might be joining an unbroken line of "Englishmen" to have held the position of Prime Minister. Why let the facts get in the way of a bit of self indulgent fantasy? 78.144.142.168 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple, blunt, clear, accepted reality is that the United Kingdom was formed in 1707 when the parliaments of Scotland and England were, under the rule of the Scottish royal family, merged to form a new state. As much as many English and Scots might like to pretend otherwise for various silly nationalist reasons, England and Scotland no longer exist and have not existed for over 300 years. 78.144.142.168 (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Government
This should be a simple debate... but it isnt. When did the current form of government found in the UK get created? This is not about a name change and as shown above the expansion of territories or merging of nations is not always the best definition of when a government is founded. So you have to ask when did the previous form of government end and the current one begin? Dates going back to the dark ages are right out with the definitions and should be avoided. I believe that these questions need to be answered before a satisfactory resolution is created. there are probably more questions but I believe that this should cover most of them. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say 1689 then it is a Constitutional Monarchy in two countries & a territory that replaced a Semi Absolute Monarchy (limited by the Magna Carta & the Provisions of Oxford) in two countries & a territory.
 * If you say 1707 then it is a Constitutional Monarchy in two countries & a territory that replaced a Constitutional Monarchy in one country & a territory.
 * If you say 1801 then it is a Constitutional Monarchy in one country & a territory that replaced a Constitutional Monarchy in one country.
 * 1) When did the old form of government change into the foundations of the current form?
 * 2) Did uniting of two different countries under one single monarch create a new system of government?
 * 3) Does the uniting of two countries superseded the previous government even if that government didn't fundamentally change?
 * 4) *If the above is true then does the union with Ireland count as the formation of a new nation or an official name change giving political representation to a territory not represented before?
 * 5) Is there a definition that will be satisfactory to historical record that wont change dates for other nations?
 * 6) Is the United Kingdom a unique case?


 * You seem to be under a serious misapprehension: Wikipedia Talk pages do not exist for Users to indulge in "debate" about the topic (see WP:TPG). Neither is it up to Users to opine "the best definition of when a government is founded".


 * Firstly we must establish if this entire article is attempting to cover a valid encyclopaedic topic (I remain to be convinced), and then we must see what reliable, external sources have to say about the topic (probably not a heck of a lot, cos the whole article largely consists of what a Wikipedian made up in an idle moment). This article is a case study in how to make Wikipedia look idiotic. --Mais oui! (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk page talk pages, which are used to discuss an article, a template, a category, etc., and user talk pages, which are used to communicate with other users or leave them messages [..] Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Talk page guidelines There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. [..] Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus. and many other topics brought up at these pages do not in any way say that discussion should not be given. Actually it encourages it. If you think this article should be deleted I understand your point and probably would be in favor of its removal. But while the article exists I just want to make it a fair article that does not have one defined standard for one country and a completely different one for another. I do not believe that I am arguing one way or another or being closed minded. I am just trying to classify when one can stipulate a national government was founded in a country that has been relatively stable since the civil war ended in the early 1600's. I will admit that I have not looked for sources simply because I did not believe that it was necessary. But I guess I will have to do some research to show that this is not OR as I believe you are claiming.


 * By the way Mais oui!. Why are you removing my attempts to communicate with you from your talk page? That is not very civil and does not show good faith :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The UK by earliest was formed in 1707 the union of the crowns does not count as a formation date. -- Barryob   (Contribs)   (Talk)  03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the union of crowns does not constitute the formation of the current government. But can the 1707 Act of Union be the foundation of the current form of government if the government didn't change before or after? I believe this is an honest question. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to you above but maybe you didn't see it, so here it is again:


 * I'm not sure I fully understand your position. The definition of birth of current form of government is:
 * Birth of current form of government: 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.


 * The cogent words are  date at which current country appeared as a unified political entity  where the "current country" of the United Kingdom was not established until 1707. The Bill of Rights/Claim of Right established constitutional monarchy and the rights of parliament for England and Scotland, but not for a country not then in existence. Bill Reid | Talk 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the honest response to my question. My question comes to this when was the government changed from one form to another creating the foundations of what we see today. If it is the merger of two independent nations into one complete nation even if the government didn't change during that process we get into dangerous ground. For if we extend that line of thought to other countries we will conclude that the absorption of the independent Kingdom of Hawaii (well a republic by then) into the United States in 1898 (as talked about above) was its Birth of current form of government and I know of no one that believes that is true. I hope I was clear on my concerns. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting line of argument, but surely there is no comparison between the creation of the united kingdom of Great Britain from two countries and the addition of Hawaii into the USA. The analogy surely fits better if we accept that the first 13 states joining together at the start formed the USA as a country, and thereafter states which joined were merely adding to the USA - in the same way that Scotland and England joined in 1707 to form the original 'united kingdom', and Ireland joining later was simply joining the country that had been created almost 100 years earlier. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree that Ireland in the UK and the other 37 states added in the US are territorial expansions; giving them representation in each governments national assembly. But the US reformed their government after the initial union while the UK formed its government then united. So its government predates that union since it was found in both countries. Then the English Parliament ascended to become the British Parliament just adding Scottish MP's to both Houses. Although I do believe that the government predates the union, should we amend the description to state that a Merged countries government cannot be older then its first modern union (Acquisition of sovereignty) . We need to make sure that this wont adversely effect other governments like Switzerland or the Vatican. All I want is a fair and just description that will give real and tangible dates. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. What you really, really want is reliable external references (and plenty of them) stating unequivocally that the United Kingdom was founded at a date prior to the Union of 1707. Of course you will not find them, because only WP:FRINGE 'theorists' (to put it politely) would ever advance a pre-1707 date. Just stick to official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY and WP:OR and stop trying to use this Wikipedia article to advance your own WP:MADEUP ideas of when the world's states were founded. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't be insulting or condescending, it is quite unbecoming of a Scottish Gentleman. Remember the basic Rules & Guidelines when discussing anything with another editor Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Etiquette, Civility & Neutral point of view. We have already talked about sources & you don't need to be passive aggressive, nearing aggressive, about your POV. I have not done such things to you nor any other editor and don't feel that it is deserved. You refuse to communicate to me on your talk page even deleting my posts pleading to communicate, hence my comments here and not on your talk page. Please work with the editors here and not harass them. Thanks. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand you guys are very much hung up on which particular act should constitute the starting date for the current FORM of government. However in the depths of your discussion (argument!) i think youve missed the point... the CURRENT FORM of government. Im sure we could argue til were blue in the face, but if you look at the extent of royal power/involvement & form of government of today vs the late 18 hundreds vs 1801 vs the 17 hundreds, you'll find those governments DISTINCTLY different... and no amount of hemming about the issue could suffice as comparable to the relative continuous form of US governence. The biggest issue here for pinning anything down with GB/UK/Britain et al is that the isles have had the great luck (and/or fortitude) of instituting gradual changes with the exception of cromwell's venture. Those gradual diminishments of royal power in the face of parliamentary power make it very hard to say WHEN the swap over happened, indeed technicly speaking the UK is STILL a kingdom harkening back to essentially the fall of rome, however such an assertion in face of the slightly less ambiguous definition of what is the current state is obviously ludicris. So far as can be seen, the furthest back you can go to see a government truly similar to todays is in the early 18 hundreds when the weak rules of George IV and william the IV truly tranformed the UK into what it is today (or close) "the Sovereign's role is limited to non-partisan functions such as granting honours. This role has been recognised since the 19th century". While the US and many other countries have certainly had enormous territorial changes, not to mention the near coup the civil war WOULD have been (if the south were succesfull)... their governments have NOT changed so intrinsicly extensively, to the point of looking nothing like they do today as in the UK's case... and please note, hawaii, guam, philipines, texas, etc... were never truly structurally government changing, they were aquisitions or subsumations at best... whereas the UK has literally on multiple occasions devolved, disolved, or merged one parlimentary body for another (or others!!) while nearly abolishing the executive powers over the same course of time. I almost think the situation is best with the boxes blank, the UK is an almost impossible riddle for solid dates, you'd need about 20 notations to any date you put up. Lionvision (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Last box of UK entry
As an angel that fears to tread, may I point out that in fact all of Ireland nominally left the UK on 6/12/1922. On 7/12/1922, NI petitioned the King in accordance with Section 6 of the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922 (= Article 12 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty) to leave the Free State and be readmitted to the United Kingdom. He said 'let it be done' on 8/12/1922. So the text of the last box of the row is not strictly correct. If anyone cares. --Red King (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)