Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation/Archive 4

UK foundation date
Noticing that some countries have been given foundation dates thousands of years in the past, indicating the very first time they came under unified rule, I propose to change the initial UK date to 12 July 927. That was the date of the gathering at Eamont Bridge, where the rulers of Scotland and Wales accepted the suzerainty of Athelstan, King of the English, who as a result adopted the title rex tocius Britannie. ðarkun coll 10:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? But what I really want to know is this: when do you propose start on the rewrite of List of French monarchs? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be Clovis, presumably. But I'll leave that to someone else. ðarkun coll 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably not Clovis, no. Not unless you swallow bad, old French history books hook, line and sinker. I was more interested to see how you'd fit Henry VIII into the French list. His coins and such like said he was king of France. Be that as it may, I am wondering which reliable sources claim that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was formed on 12 July 927. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No English king ever made good his claim to France. As for the UK, it wasn't called that, but it was a polity that occupied the same area. The point being that Athelstan united under his rule the whole of Great Britain. This is just as good as many of the other entries in the list. ðarkun coll 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer though is surely not to add more things which are wrong but to fix the existing nonsense. The UK line should surely mention 1603 and 1800 as well as 1707. But rather than aiming to one-up other bollocks, why not sit back and enjoy this shockingly bad article while it lasts? It's pure comedy gold, as they say. Russia formed in 860? Brilliant. Spain formed in 1492? Unbeatable! But no, wait, we have a winner. The People's Republic of China was formed in 221 BC. OK, it doesn't quite say that, but still, unified in 221 BC? Well that lasted right up until today, didn't it? Cracking stuff. So, thinking about it again, you might as well put in Athelstan in 927. Or Oswiu maybe? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or how about Brutus of Troy, who ruled Britain around 1100 BC? ðarkun coll 08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY applies here (as everywhere). All respectable references date the foundation of the United Kingdom to 1707 (or 1801). Thakun's suggestions are deep, deep into the realms of WP:OR. Dare I suggest that he is well aware of this? --Mais oui! (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are surely sources which support 1603 being an alternative date. See this for example. Wrongheaded? Probably. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And not forgetting 1653, which was the first time the whole of Great Britain had a single parliament (under Cromwell). ðarkun coll 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold it right there, 1603 is a non-starter. The Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But even in terms of parliamentary union, surely 1653 beats 1707? This list includes many other states that have changed between monarchy and republic in their history. ðarkun coll 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK is not a continuation of that 1649 to 1660 state (Commonwealth of England). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The state after 1653, with parliamentary union, was called the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. And if the UK is not a continuation of it, then how come, say, the Peoples Republic of China is a continuation of the Chinese Empire? Or the French Republic of the Kingdom of France, etc.? ðarkun coll 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1660 the parliamentary union broke up into the English Parliament & Scottish Parliament, remaing that way until 1707. Once again, from 1660 to 1707, there were 2 seperate states, the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of the polities on this list had periods of disunity after their foundation date. China, again, springs to mind. ðarkun coll 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At least add the 'ending date' of it 1660. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, that could go in one of the other columns (and it was 1659 anyway, when Richard Cromwell resigned, abrogating the constitution). ðarkun coll 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the 1659 to 1660 situation? GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A de jure return to the Commonwealth of England, without a Lord Protector, but in fact a virtual military dictatorship under General Monck. ðarkun coll 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sold on this, but atleast yas aint pushing 1603. It's not a secret that it's a sore spot for me. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All history books say 1707 is the date the United Kingdom came into being, therefore we should use that date here. I don't understand why there always has to be a big argument over something that's an established fact. The UK started in 1707. Accept it and get over it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing is though, in terms of this list, which has some pretty ridiculously early dates for some countries, 1653 is perfectly acceptable - even GoodDay appears to agree on that. ðarkun coll 18:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're are gonna keep 1707, of course? GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be listed in one of the later columns. ðarkun coll 18:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1653 is ridiculous especially as there wasn't even a monarchy then. How could there be a United Kingdom in 1653, when the monarchy had been overthrown? 1707 is factually correct, and 1653 is OR. Sorry, but I have to be blunt about this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just not convinced of the connection between the Protectorate (1653-59) & the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800). I'll let others haggle about it's inclusion/exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But states have changed from monarchy to republic, and vice versa, and this doesn't affect their foundation date for the purposes of this list. ðarkun coll 18:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a document extant in which it states that Cromwell himself referred to the Protectorate as the United Kingdom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But you're just talking about a name. States change their name all the time. The UK wasn't conjured out of thin air in 1707. The way some people talk, it would appear that it had nothing at all to do with what went before, but the opposite is the case. ðarkun coll 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it should WP:Verifiable. Otherwise we must default to 1707 as the correct date. Outback the koala (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is simple. We have to figure out what country the UK is the successor state of. Was it the Kingdom of Scotland or the Kingdom of England or both? The idea of Successor state was founded in diplomatic law and a recognized truth even back then. Otherwise other laws and treaties would be null and void in a new country. Was the Treaty of Windsor (1386) nullified stopping the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance? -- Phoenix (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the successor state of both. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Then the earlier date of the Kingdom of Scotland would be the correct one. -- Phoenix (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, the Kingdom of Scotland & the Kingdom of England each had predecessar states, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are there still treaties in force from those predecessor states? From my knowledge there are still enforceable and recognized treaties for England and Scotland that the UK has taken over but nothing earlier. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The main reason Wikipedia is often denounced by academics is due to the arbitrary changes of established facts based on the original research, nationalistic opinions, or the desire to revise history by some editors. I say if we use any other date than 1707, we'll be proving that those decriers are in actual fact, correct about us. We are an encyclopedia; here to state the facts, not manipulate them. Stay with 1707.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What was the difference in the government in 1699 or the government in 1702? For the old Kingdom of England the government had the same Parliament with a larger area to govern and some new MP's. That looks like a clear successor state with unbroken treaty obligations. Why is this laughable when Iran is @ 3200 BC; South Korea @ October 3, 2333 BC; Japan @ 660 BC; etc... The UK has a far greater claim and a governmental history that is actually documented thought this time frame. Much more than most that base theirs on legend but have it included in this list. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * England & Scotland joined to become Great Britain. Not, England expanded to become a bigger England. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right GoodDay. That occurred in 1707; any other date given would be OR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But in practical terms that's exactly what happened. The Act of Union was forced on a reluctant Scotland by England, to secure the Hanoverian succession there (amongst other things). This too is a recognised fact of history, and to say or imply anything else would be POV. ðarkun coll 17:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've butted heads on this before, I'll let others have a go. PS: I'm stil peeved with Starkey. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Starkey? I thought his series was quite amusing. ðarkun coll 18:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

He treated the Scottish monarchy as an non-entity. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And also the Welsh monarchy, and all the others that were absorbed. He was looking at the history of the English/British kingdom through its monarchs, and as a professional historian recognised the essential continuity that this entailed. It's not possible to imagine, for example, a similar programme about Scotland (unless it stopped at the union). ðarkun coll 19:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The British monarchy was also a continuation of the Scottish monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodDay I am in no ways saying that England expanded, but politically inside westminister before the union and after the union nothing changed except for more ministers and more authority imbued to them. The country was not changed by revolution and a new power was not in charge. The union only did that, it united 2 countries into one under an already existing government.
 * Please answer my other question Why is this laughable for the UK to be founded in the 900's when Iran is @ 3200 BC; South Korea @ October 3, 2333 BC; Japan @ 660 BC; etc... The UK has a far greater claim and a governmental history that is actually documented thought this time frame. Much more than most that base theirs on legend but have it included in this list. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just anxious that we respect the histories of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England. We can't have it as just England to United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's the practical reality of the situation - England became the UK. It isn't "disrespectful" to tell the truth - quite the opposite. ðarkun coll 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We've argued this before & we end up in a stalemate. No point in continuing it. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will ask a third time, Why is this laughable for the UK to be founded in the 900's when Iran is @ 3200 BC; South Korea @ October 3, 2333 BC; Japan @ 660 BC; etc... The UK has a far greater claim and a governmental history that is actually documented thought this time frame. Much more than most that base theirs on legend but have it included in this list. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there was no such political entity as the United Kingdom in the 900s! How could there have been? William the Conqueror hadn't even invaded yet! Those other nations' arbitrary dates you have cited also seem spurious to me. Anything based on legend or mythology should not be included here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1066 makes sense also. If I was to ask someone when the Parliament was founded would they say 1688, 1707 or 1215? If I was to ask about the Monarchy would they say 1707 or 1066? If I was to ask when the United States was founded would they say 1776, 1783, 1787, 1865, 1898 or 1959? How is it possible for a country to be founded after its political institutions have been fully functioning and operational for almost 500 years? If someone can figure out why the UK is being held to one standard and other nations are not then let me know what standard we are using. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What's William the Conqeror got to do with it? There was a unified English kingdom long before he arrived. ðarkun coll 09:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall Billy invading Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales in 1066. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK officially came into being in 1707. We are really going around in circles debating a solid, hard fact which can be sourced in any encyclopedia or history book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with 1707 as the UK's founding date. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll drink to that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Even the CIA Factbook knows that that's not the whole story - and, as is so often pointed out, Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Here's what the Factbook says:

"1927; England has existed as a unified entity since the 10th century; the union between England and Wales, begun in 1284 with the Statute of Rhuddlan, was not formalized until 1536 with an Act of Union; in another Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain; the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was implemented in 1801, with the adoption of the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927"

Note that it makes a point of saying that England was unified in the 10th century. Other places are only mentioned when they are taken over. ðarkun coll 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because there was no such political entity as the United Kingdom in the 900s So we base this on the name of the country or the territory it covered? So France is correct because they called the Kingdom France in the 900's even though it did not control much of what we now call modern France? The UK is the successor state of the Kingdom of England and Scotland with the same political structures before and afterwards. My issue is the fact that this article has many dates that are very far fetched and the UK being founded in the 900's is not even off not only because of it being a successor state but because Athelstan of England was in fact the first king of both England and Scotland in 937. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you add England's founding date? then you must add Scotland's founding date & Wales' founding date. Thankfully, we've already got the 1801 & 1922 date for Ireland, then Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1801 Ireland's founding date?!!!!! GoodDay, would you be so kind as to explain how Ireland was founded in 1801?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, scrath that. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The CIA Factbook only has the foundation date for England. To add the others here would be OR. ðarkun coll 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic precisely because it is a matter of interpretation, not historical fact. On the one hand, the 1707 formation of the UK can be viewed as a national unification, comparable to the 1479 formation of Spain from the union of Aragon and Castile. On the other hand, some view the 1707 event as an annexation of Scotland by its more powerful neighbor, and the UK is effectively a "greater England." For purposes of this list, I don't think the name of the country is relevant: while the name "United Kingdom" was not used before 1707, other names, such as "People's Republic of China," "Saudi Arabia," "Myanmar," and perhaps "Iran" are of more recent vintage than the formation of sovereign states ancestral to the modern states by those names. Mais oui!, Jeanne Boleyn, and others are correct in saying it is "established fact" that the UK was founded in 1707 (or 1801). It is also "established fact" that the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949; nevertheless, it was a successor to a whole series of governments and dynasties going back at least to the unification of China under the Qin Dynasty in 221 BC. So Phoenix, TharkunColl, and others have a valid point in viewing the UK as a continuation of the Kingdom of England. This is a matter of interpretation, which may be influenced by one's nationalistic feelings (e.g., if one is English or Scottish).

I don't know which interpretation is better. But if we accept the UK as a new country and not a continuation of England, then the UK is one of just three countries in the world that did not arise by throwing off a foreign yoke AND was not conquered or subordinated since its formation. I've therefore put "-none-" as the value for "Date of last subordination" and for "Previous governing power." Goustien (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying the UK is an continuation of England & not Scotland, is inaccurate. Note: it's named the United Kingdom, not England. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep going on about names? ðarkun coll 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to say that GoodDay you are an editor here that I highly respect and have had nothing but good conversations and interactions with you over the years and usually I find that we agree on many subjects and I am sure that will continue for many more to come :-) but this one I am a confused. How can you say that the UK (as a) continuation of England & not Scotland, is inaccurate? That is just not true. I do not believe that it was an expansion of England but a union... but almost the entire political organization of England was unchanged before and after the early 1700's. When a government does not change, a monarch does not change, and the country changed its name to reflect a larger area, that is not the foundation of a new country only the foundation of a new name. I cannot accept a dual and conflicting idea on what is an original founding of a nation. Either it is the predecessor state as shown and used throughout the majority of this article, the origin of the current political entity that I argue was not 1707, or its territorial unification. If it is the predecessor state than the UK's foundation should be either Scotland or England. If it is the political entity then it should be either 1066, 1215 or 1688. If it is the Unification then the USA should have its date changed from its current political constitution to 1776 and the entire article needs a re-write. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Either use both England & Scotland founding dates or neither. England didn't take over Scotland. We've the United Kingdom, not Greater England. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point - England did take over Scotland. It forced a union on it by a process of bribery, blackmail and bullying, and later enforced it with troops when the Scots rose in revolt. The name of the state is irrelevant. ðarkun coll 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added to the sortable section & now the UK 'rightly' has 2 preceding states. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but what you're doing is OR. I've reverted to reflect the source, the CIA World Factbook. ðarkun coll 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is (again) English bias. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm giving the facts as stated. You can't see it because of anti-English bias. Are the SNP guilty of English bias when they call for Scottish independence? Independence from what? ðarkun coll 16:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got the best source, the Act of Union 1707 itself. England didn't takeover Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's Synthesis, OR and POV. Merely stating something over and over again doesn't make it true. ðarkun coll 16:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so stop repeating that England took over Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It did. Anyway you've reached your 3RR now. ðarkun coll 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I'll let your PoV prevail here. Even though it contradicts the articles Act of Union 1707, Kingdom of England & List of English monarchs. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't use Wikipedia articles as sources. If you remember, it was your POV that prevailed on List of English monarchs, truncating it where it now is. ðarkun coll 16:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish here, re-name the section 'Greater England' even; I won't protest. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK was founded in 927? something doesn't seem correct. Anyways, I've asked for clarification at WikiProject United Kingdom. The inaccuracy at the sortable section is bad enough; but this takes the accuracy cake & throws it out the window. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So when you said you were bowing out of this debate, you weren't being strictly honest? ðarkun coll 18:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was departed, 'until' the 927 date replaced the 1707 date. 843 came before 927, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 843 did indeed come before 927, but why on earth is that in any way relevant? Athelstan ruled the whole of Britain in 927. In 843, Keneth McAlpin didn't even rule the whole of what is now Scotland (Strathclyde was still a separate kingdom, and the region around Edinburgh was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria). But in any case, you told me to do as I liked with this article, you would no longer have any part in it. ðarkun coll 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't reverted or changed your recent edits, don't worry. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ya keep treating 1707, like the 1280's. England took over Wales, but England didn't take over Scotland. For goodness sake, in 1603 (104 years before Union), a King of Scotland became King of England (while remaining King of Scotland). According to the 1603 events, I could say Scotland took over England. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't take a position on which date should prevail, but please be consistent with the three columns in the sortable list. If you use the earlier date of sovereignty, then you have to include the Norman Conquest in the next two columns. If you use the later date, then indicate "-none-" in the next two columns. The point of the sortable list is to maintain a comparative history of subordination (i.e., conquest, colonization, occupation, etc.). Goustien (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we go by monarchies, the Scots would get priority. It was a Scottish monarch who succeeded to the English throne in 1603, not the other-way. I just want Scotland & England to get equal treatment. England didn't conquer Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting edit Goustein. One could argue that the UK orgin (via England) began in Normandy. I'm not certain if Scotland was ever taken over by a foreigner (as England was in 1066). Wowsers, a Norman takes over England in 1066, then a Scotsman takes over England in 1603? interesting indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The act of union of 1707 was brought about because the Scots were not going to agree to the Hanoverian succession (i.e. the English had tired of the Stuarts). Are you actually aware of this? ðarkun coll 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, we've a foreigner taking over Great Britain in 1714. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the English regarded King George I as a foreigner as he couldn't even speak English. There were many who came before him in the line of succession. His mother Sophia of Hanover was the youngest daughter of Elizabeth of Bohemia (daughter of James I of England), and she had many siblings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely correct. The English parliament in 1701 decided it wanted the Hanoverians, and ignored the approximately 50 people with a better claim, because they were Catholics. The Scottish parliament decided otherwise. Queen Anne (who, although a Stuart, backed the English decision) tried to delay the Scots, until eventually the English put up trade barriers, and Scotland was bankrupted. The Scots were bullied and bribed into the union so the English could secure the Hanoverian succession. ðarkun coll 09:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

1707
I've a better idea. Let's avoid the England/Scotland argument & merely stick with 1707 (as the UK's founding date). GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; otherwise this argument will last until the next millenium.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the headache that this is causing GoodDay. ðarkuncoll you are not helping us, please argue the point and not reinterpret history with todays morals. Don't forget that the idea of nationalism did not arrive until the late 1700's.
 * My point has always been two fold:
 * the predecessor states only merged and in one case changed very little. Not OR.
 * countries such as china use the first date of unification in ancient times.
 * If we are to use the standard applied to every other country listed then we should use 843 (predecessor state), 937 (first unification under Athelstan), 1689 (foundation of current gov), or if the entire article is reformed 1707. Personally 937 makes more sense, but I am willing to accept any of the 3 as long as the rest of the article reflects these and the UK is not unique. -- Phoenix (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How about Wessex, the state that exapanded to become England? That was founded in 519. ðarkun coll 09:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cute. Is Wessex considered a predecessor state of the United Kingdom? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wessex expanded to cover the whole of England in the 10th century - there was no break. It simply became the Kingdom of England. ðarkun coll 11:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets look at what other countries are listed as: As you see the left column is the creation of the form of government used. The middle column is the first time that a nation approximating its land has been united. In the case of China the Qin Dynasty is listed as its predecessor state and just like most listed in the article it does not even resemble the size or name of the current modern country. The right column speaks for itself. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The political entity Great Britain did not exist in 927! Please guys/girls, this whole thing is getting sillier by the minute.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did China? What about Ethiopia? What about South Korea? Why are they correct? What standard are they using that the UK is not? Why are they allowed to use a different standard, a standard that we Brits will not allow ourselves to use, but allow others to get away with. -- Phoenix (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This section is discussing the UK; we can discuss Korea, China and Ethiopia as I also question their dates which appear to be shrouded in the mists of legend as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the historical unifications of each nation being listed in the middle column; however, we need to give the relevant dates for Scotland and Wales, not just England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the correct date of 1707. The United Kingdom was formed then so please don't start using original research to add any date you see fit. I have also asked for outside opinion from the Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland and England talk pages and would appreciate it if no one reverted back until others give their opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

www.parliament.uk "The passing of Acts of Union by both the English and Scottish parliaments led to the creation on 1 May 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain". Anything else is original research. Jack forbes (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please check out the CIA World Factbook page I linked to above. To simply single out 1707, as if the UK sprang into existence out of thin air on that date, is itself OR and POV. ðarkun coll 14:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, come on now. You are saying my source is original research? You have no argument against it Tharky, you win some you lose some. Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the facts of history, which you admitted yourself on my talkpage. Scotland was forced into the union. ðarkun coll 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they were forced. Why does my saying that invalidate the fact that the United Kingdom was formed in 1707? Jack forbes (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, if you look at the other countries on this list (above, for example), you will see that neither the name of the country (United Kingdom), nor its form of government (parliamentary monarchy) have any bearing whatsoever on the foundation date - and nor does continuity of existence. In 927 Athelstan was accepted as ruler of all Great Britain. Do you dispute this? ðarkun coll 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again you are using original research whilst I have a cast iron source. I don't care if he ruled all of Europe, he wasn't the ruler of the United Kingdom. As for the other countries, if their foundation dates are wrong then someone should correct them. I'm saying the wrong date of formation of the United Kingdom was inserted and is now correct. Now, if you can find a source that confirms the United Kingdom was formed in 927 or any other date you see fit I'll look at it. Until that time the creation in 1707 of the UK is factually correct. Jack forbes (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only dates that we should be discussing are 1707 or 1800. The official UK Yearbook actually says that "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created by the Act of Union 1800" (even though that seems a little ahistorical to me!) Personally I would go for 1707 which is, for obvious reasons, the date given in most history textbooks.--Pondle (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the CIA World Factbook says under United Kingdom :

"1927; England has existed as a unified entity since the 10th century; the union between England and Wales, begun in 1284 with the Statute of Rhuddlan, was not formalized until 1536 with an Act of Union; in another Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain; the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was implemented in 1801, with the adoption of the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927" ðarkun coll 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created by the Act of Union 1800?!!!!!!!!! Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably did Jeanne. "England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain" Well, no, they joined as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. How could the CIA fact book get it so wrong! Jack forbes (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're doing now is disputing the source, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia I'm afraid. ðarkun coll 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be afraid, Tharky. If the source is shown to be unreliable then I have every right to dispute it. Tell me, are you disputing my cast iron source? Jack forbes (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 843 founding date of the Kingdom of Scotland, 927 founding date of the Kingdom of England, 1707 founding date of the Kingdom of Great Britain, 1801 founding date of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland & 1922 founding date of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Make your pick, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, 927 was when Athelstan ruled the whole of Britain. The first person to call himself King of England was Offa of Mercia in 774. Odd how you didn't spot this. ðarkun coll 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said, make your choice folks. Personally, my choice would be 1707, 1801 or 1922. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GoodDay, there is no choice, only verifiable facts. Jack forbes (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you dispute the CIA World Factbook source? But in any case, I don't dispute what your source says, merely its relevance to what we're trying to determine here. ðarkun coll 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be dragging this out for reasons I can't fathom. To say that the source has no relevance quite frankly astonishes me. The date now in the article (1707) is correct and should not be altered. I have other things to do at the moment. Jack forbes (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So 800 BC is correct for Ethiopia, is it? ðarkun coll 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It's seems as though most of us prefer 1707 as the founding date. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If I can chip in here, I'd say I certainly agree with 1707 as the founding date of the United Kingdom. Trying to establish otherwise seems to be like trying to figure out the exact day your family tree started. Hence, to address the points raised by some other contributors here, I'd question many of the founding dates listed. I wonder how many of them are there as entries in some pissing match over who's country is older, rather than verifiability, or any other of those core tenets of Wikipedia. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For sure, this article is messed up. Infact, if it were nominated for deletion? I'd support it. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be deleted, just improved. We can all help to double-check the dates given here for starters; and once they are established, put the page under protection so the dates don't get changed every couple of minutes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

UK foundation date break 2
I just want consistency and this article is anything but. But I am confused. Why are some that argue against the UK as an earlier date, dont forget that for a while England had overlordship of Scotland until Richard the Lionheart sold it back to the Scottish nobles to pay for his crusade. Yet Mexico was founded in the 1800's and they are now calling for it to be in the 1300's... How can you argue against an earlier date here and argue for an earlier date for other countries? Your not being consistent :-( -- Phoenix (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Scotland & the Kingdom of England were co-predecessors to the Kingdom of Great Britain. That's simply the way it is. If we're to mention dates before 1707? we must mention both of those Kingdoms. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They weren't equal co-predecessors though. And that's simply the way it is. ðarkun coll 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the 1707 Act of Union, they were. The majority here, seems to agree with that. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a clause in the Act of Union that says they were equal? In fact, the Act contained a number of clauses protecting Scottish institutions such as its church, legal system and even its crown jewels. No such clauses existed to protect English institutions. The framers were in no doubt, therefore, which was the dominant partner, and which needed protecting. ðarkun coll 00:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait and see what the others think. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1707 is the correct date so nothing else should be put in that column. I see there are two tables on the page, one is saying 1707, but the one below is showing the United Kingdom with a much earlier date, very confusing and both should say the same thing.


 * The wording in the table should be changed to clearly mention the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England, rather than just talking about the treaty and acts of union. That way it could say something like.. "The Kingdom of England (formed in ****) and the Kingdom of Scotland (formed in ****) passed the Acts of union in 1707 which created the Kingdom of Great Britain." Then mention the Act of Union with Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you for joining this discussion BritishWatcher. So is below an accurate description of what you suggest? I used china and france as examples of what has been done before. -- Phoenix (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good except that Wales has been overlooked. There needs to be a date for the formation of the principality of Wales.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't need Wales. Does anyone dispute that it was annexed by England? As for the proposal above, I think it's not too bad actually - at least it gets in the Bill of Rights as well, which is the British equivalent of a constitution. However - and this is crucially important - the dates for the foundations of the kingdoms are wrong. If we're comparing like with like, then what Kenneth McAlpin did in 843 was equivalent to what Egbert of Wessex did in 829. Many lists give Egbert as the first King of England. ðarkun coll 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you dispute the fact that Llywelyn the Great founded the Principality of Wales in 1216?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have edited it to reflect that. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've edited to reflect the more accurate foundation date for England. ðarkun coll 08:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It was hardly what one would call a stable polity, since it didn't even last as long as he did. But that's not the point. The issue, as has been continually stressed by GoodDay etc., is that the Union of 1707 was (supposedly) a union of equals (though in fact it wasn't). What happened with Wales was simply an annexation, pure and simple. ðarkun coll 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will say that Wales was considered an integral part of England hence the reason it was not included in the Union Flag other reasons like the laws are the same in both countries. There is even an article called England and Wales that talks more on this subject. That being said I see no reason that it should not be included. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Go on then - if Scotland, why not Wales? But I'm pretty keen on retaining the more accurate foundation date for England though. ðarkun coll 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the English foundation date you added.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a solution then? Phew!!! :) ðarkun coll 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl, I said it was fine by me! I cannot speak for the other editors who've contributed here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tharkie your suggesting an earlier date. Here is what the Kingdom of England article states
 * The Kingdom of England has no specific founding date... The English lands were finally unified in the 10th century in a reconquest completed by King Athelstan in AD 927... The decline of Mercia allowed Wessex to become more powerful. It absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in 825 AD. The Kings of Wessex became increasingly dominant over the other kingdoms of England during the 9th century. In 827 AD, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of Wessex at Dore. It has been claimed that Egbert thereby became the first king to reign over a united England, however briefly. During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in 954 AD, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria, was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. England has remained in political unity ever since.

So the article backs your claim, I suppose 827 not 829 would be correct. Should you petition the article Kingdom of England to change its date? Or is 927 the accepted academic date? -- Phoenix (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both articles need to display the same date for consistancy's sake.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would make the most sense. -- Phoenix (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the year 927 was the accepted academic date, as noted in the Kingdom of England infobox. No harm though asking the question at the article talk page to get some feedback. I haven't looked but has it been brought up previously and debated there? Jack forbes (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes two of us. But if that talk page agrees then I see no issue in its inclusion. For the moment I have included the above info with the 927 date. Tharky I hope that you can accept that at least for the moment since it is an improvement. I do believe that it needs some word editing to get it more concise as shown in the French example above. -- Phoenix (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the bill of rights be in the same column as the 1707 union? The first column should only state the year of the creation of the United Kingdom and that's 1707. Jack forbes (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see a huge error that needs to be rectified ASAP. It says in the right column that Northern Ireland seceeded from the Irish Free State in 1922!! This is incorrect as Northern Ireland was never part of the Irish Free State. It was created as a separate division of the UK in 1921 following the Government of Ireland Act in 1920.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I withdraw my attempted compromise with regard to the inclusion of Scotland and Wales. 927 is the date that Athelstan took control of the whole of Britain. Egbert took control of the whole of England in 829. Incidentally, you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources, or to back up your arguments - it's against the rules. ðarkun coll 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be no compromise with regard to Scotland and Wales. They do belong there. The year 927 can be brought up at the Kingdom of England talk page and the England talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the CIA factbook says the 10th century. But the 1911 Encyclopedia britannica says
 * HEPTARCHY (Gr. brra seven, and apx, rule), a word which is frequently used to designate the period of English history between the coming of the Anglo-Saxons in 449 and the union of the kingdoms under Ecgbert in 828.  there is more here.
 * for Northern Ireland it was taken from the Ireland entry and here
 * 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)
 * So with those two in mind I will restore it with 828 as the date and see what happens from there and Tharky if you could take this to the Kingdom of England article that would be appreciated also. -- Phoenix (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's either we add the founding dates for Scotland & England or we don't add either & stick with 1707. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's either we add the founding dates for Scotland & England or we don't add either & stick with 1707. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you go with 828 (or 829) for England, I won't object to the dates for Scotland and Wales being put in. ðarkun coll 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the three England and Scotland are included, I've no probs. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realise you've completely undermined your argument for the inclusion of Scotland, don't you? If England and Scotland united in 1707, the same wasn't true for England and Wales in 1536 - it was a straight annexation of the latter by the former. So, I ask again - why is the UK being treated differently to every other state on this list? ðarkun coll 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I meant 'England and Scotland'. Whether you add Wales or not, is not important to me. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's two dishonourable things you've done now, GoodDay. You've just gone and altered what you said earlier, to make my response look like bollocks. And the other thing you did was telling me you would have no further participation in this article (see my talkpage), and you had no objection to whatever I did. ðarkun coll 00:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "If you go with 828 (or 829) for England, I won't object to the dates for Scotland and Wales being put in". TharkunColl 00:05, 6 March 2010 What's that about dishonesty? GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As for me rejoining the discussion, when claiming I was done with it? That's simple, I changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's called trying to reach a consensus. But, in any case, I challenge you to show me where I called you dishonest. I called you dishonourable. ðarkun coll 00:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing your mind after undertaking to do something is dishonourable. ðarkun coll 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I mis-read that. Yes, I'm dishonourable & shall never forgive myself. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How can one use the inclusion or exclusion of nations as bargaining counters in a debate on dates. England, Scotland, and Wales all need to be listed here complete with their respective formation dates. This discussion is not about an editor's honour, it's about the formation dates of the nations of the world; let's stick to the issue, and leave such irrelevant terms like honour and dishonour out of it. This is becoming like a debate in Parliament or Congress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's stick with 1707. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)