Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation

Where's Russia?

The Russian Federation was founded in 1991, yet it's not listed. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be there. Obviously an oversight.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

is it not a successor state to the USSR and the Russian empire prior to that? It only appears in the sortable list in any case. Outback the koala (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The USSR has 15 successors states. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, not quite. Most former Soviet republic declared independence from the USSR proper, while the Russian Federation was declared with essentially what was left over. I thought it was commonly considered to be the sole successor state (Soviet embassies for example became Russian, not Latvian). Even the number 15 is up in the air, because of Partially recognized states located in the Caucuses. Outback the koala (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The 14 others, didn't breakaway from Russia. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What?? I don't understand what you're saying. Could you please clarify for me what you mean to say. Outback the koala (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The USSR broke up into 15 countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes the USSR broke up into 15 independent states, that is a valid way to look at it. But, if we look closer (I direct you to this page) we can see it didn't all happen in the blink of an eye, and that the didn't USSR magically stopped existing and 15 new state instantly popped into existence. For example; The Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic declared independence on March 11, 1990. The current Lithuania page supports this. I won't go through each independence, but I hope I have evidenced enough that the dissolution was a process, not an event. The final nail in the coffin was the Ukraine's declaration of independence from the USSR. At that point it ceased to be apart of the USSR. So upon the formation of the Russian Federation, that state became the sole successor state of the USSR. If I have missed anything, please correct me. Outback the koala (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So in effect, Gobachev resigned as President of a country that no longer existed. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hardly, he resigned as President of a country that was severely reduced in size (i.e. size of present day Russian Federation), but still had the same name formally. Outback the koala (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should note that, from the USSR's perspective, they viewed the newly formed countries as still apart of itself up until the dissolution. A good example of this view is here. However from the new republics point of view they were already completely independent. I cant recall what the west's views were on this, although I believe they did support with recognition later (hopefully someone else can confirm this). Outback the koala (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we atleast agree, 1991 was the founding year of the Russian Federation? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why American dating style?

The American style of dating here is disconcerting, seeing as most other nations use the day before the month.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, this page needs alot of help over here. Please consider helping out. Outback the koala (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The USA doesn't consider 1781, as a founding date either. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't consider it itself, does not make it fact. The myth of independence is powerful, and the date of '1776' is apart of the myth. Outback the koala (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell that to the Americans. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My teachers taught me that the good ol' USA became a nation in 1776! (Now why do I keep hearing a John Philip Sousa march playing over and over in my head?)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I once had a professor teach a whole lecture on this subject alone(ie the mythos surrounding the 1776 date); if only I could pull the old bird on to wikipedia... Outback the koala (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The date format with numbers like 1975-10-01 is disgusting. "November 1, 1918" looks good and should be used throughout the page but considering the number of problems with this article, basic presentation should not be a priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; it looks very sloppy and confusing. The full dates should be written out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The US standard is mm-dd-yyyy the commonwealth standard is dd-mm-yyyy. Personally the yyyy-mm-dd format is very appealing since it is the standard in computer related industries, the International standard date and time notation ISO 8601 and ignores many regional preferences that is often argued about on many wiki pages. Please see Date and time notation by country and ISO 8601 usage. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

I notice Mexico is given 1810 as its founding date. Seeing as nations like China and Ethipia are permitted an older history, surely Mexico should begin with the founding of the Aztec Empire on 13 March 1325.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Why won't you permit a far less outrageous option for the UK? ðarkuncoll 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because we are talking about the UK, not the single nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. I think each one could be listed in the middle column with its historical formation, but the United Kingdom must state 1707.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So the Aztec Empire was a single nation was it, rather than an empire containing lots of different peoples? ðarkuncoll 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See the founding date for the article on Aztec Empire. It reads 13 March 1325. That should be given as its historical formation date with the 1810 date for the modern state of Mexico.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Aztec Empire certainly had a founding date, and indeed I agree it should be used here. But to not apply a similar principle to Britain is pure double standards, I'm afraid. The Aztec Empire was just as much a collection of different nations as the UK is - or in fact, more so. ðarkuncoll 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the United Kingdom did not exist as a single political unit until 1707, whereas the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales did, and they should be given their historical formations in the middle column of the United Kingdom listing. Why are we arguing over this? We have no argument.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK was created by England, so only England should be noted. To do otherwise would be to misrepresent the situation. ðarkuncoll 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nationalistic POV, TharkunColl. If I were a Scot or Welsh I'd be highly offended. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That's why they have independence movements there, because they know that what I just said is true. ðarkuncoll 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't reply to him, Jeanne. It's called trolling. Jack forbes (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you heard the rule about Assuming Good Faith? ðarkuncoll 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can we assume good faith when you make unhelpful, patronising comments, knowing they are going to offend many people? Sorry, TharkunColl, but I really think your above statement was uncalled for.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nothing I've said is inaccurate, but if the truth offends, so be it. The UK was created by England for its own strategic ends (in the case of both Scotland and Ireland, for example, the ultimate motive was to prevent those countries falling under French influence). One can endlessly dispute the ethics of this, but it doesn't stop it being true. Are the English imperialist bastards? Probably. Did they create the UK? Yes. ðarkuncoll 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Though not as well known, there are those who support English independance from the United Kingdom. Anyways, isn't this discussion supposed to be about Mexico? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I must agree on this with Jeanne and Jack. I did AGF, but no longer. Outback the koala (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to permit a direct continuity between the Aztec Empire and modern Mexico (which is very fantastical in my opinion), then surely we should do the same for other countries. Tonga is much older than 1970 (the year it gave up British protectorate) - There was a Tongan empire with a history that goes back to the 1200s. In Africa, Rwanda started as a kingdom or chiefdom in the 1400s, and Burundi in the 1500s. Swaziland, Lesotho, Togo, and Benin (as Dahomey) have similar connections to precolonial states. In the former Soviet Union, Armenia and Georgia have continuity with ancient states, while Russia and Lithuania can be connected with medieval predecessors. Bhutan, Iceland, Yemen, Vietnam, and Laos are much older than shown on the map, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.150.125 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Central African Republic

This republic was established in 1979 replacing the Empire. Why is a 1960 date given ?Eregli bob (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The dates given in this article need to be double-checked with a good reference book to back them up, as some appear decidedly spurious.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Central African Republic bgecame independent from France in 1960, and I have no reason to doubt the date in the table, and it has been independent since that time. However, the first two columns of the table refer to the "most recent change of government form" ( or something like that, I can't read that page while I am writing on this one ). Between 1976 and 1979, the Central African state was an empire, a comical one maybe, but one which was recognised by other states. Therefore, the date of the most recent change of government form for this country, was the re-establishment of the republic in 1979. Compare to Ethiopia or Tunisia's entry.Eregli bob (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Iran

How is Iran a soverign state since 3000 years when it was subjugated by the Mongols for 150 years ?Eregli bob (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all that is not 3000 years that is since 3200 BC which means 5200 years. Secondly, with this philosophy the date of establishment for all countries which have been invaded and occupied temporarily like Egypt, India, China, Georgia, Armenia, Greece and all countries which were occupied during WWI and WWII and all countries in soviet union (almost all countries) should change. Then Iraq and Afghanistan which have been invaded by US still do not exist!!! Furthermore, even during mongols occupation Iran was never separated or changed its name and has always been united and known as a country named Iran. During mongols occupation they only determined the ruler of Iran like whats going on now a days in Canada! with this reasoning then Canada still doesn't exist and is part of England because the Governor General of Canada is chosen by the Queen of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzad863 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

-In fact, if we look close enough at the list we'll see it doesn't say that Iran has been a soverign state for 5200 years. But it says it's First Acquisition of Sovereignty dates back to 5200 years ago. If you want to see how long a country have been a soverign state you have to look at the Date of Last Subordination. So according to the list Iran has been a sovereign state for 510 years and is among the four oldest sovereign states.--Hame fan harif (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

-According to history books; such as "World History Atlas" by McDougal Littell; 2009. Civilizations started in the city of Ur in Sumur 3000 BC, while the Persian Empire flourished 550 BC, that was the first historical mislead. Furthermore, Persia had been occupied by Mongols for 150 year, and then it had been submitted under the Islamic Caliphate since 632, till it has soverign in 1935.

There are two points here:

• The first one is about the first Iranian sovereign state. The fact is that the Persian empire was not the first government ever ruled over Iran. Persians are only one of the Iranian nations (see http://www.worldhistorymaps.info and http://www.thomaslessman.com/History/Maps.html also 1300 BC and 600 BC). Before Persians had come into power Iran was under the rule of another Iranian nation (Medes). Why don't you take a look at the article of Persian History and it's refrences? It was just a misunderstanding that western countries called the land Persia (maybe because Iran became a superpower twice under the rule of Persians). But since the time Aryans occupied the land, they called it Iran, Meaning the land of Aryans (or the land of nobles). And that's why on 1935 Shah of Iran asked the western countries to call the land "Iran".
• The second is the fact that Iran has been invaded multiple times and been under the rule of Macedonians, Arabs and Mongols. Seleucids ruled over Iran for 200 years, then Iranians reunified it and Parthians came into power. And even Mongol's successors ruling over Iran just called themselves shahs of Iran! Even if you were right, that did not make any difference because we're talking about the "first acquisition of sovereignty" not the "date of last subordination". The date of last suordination refers to the last time a country was under the rule of foreigners, such as Arabs and Mongols ruling over Iran, or Iranians ruling over Oman, or Denmark ruling over Sweden. In the year 1935 absoloutly nothing happend with the Persian government & I don't know what you're talking about. Anyway, ever since 1500AD, Iran has been under the rule of Iranians. --Hame fan harif (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

List of countries by statehood should be merged into the sortable section of this page: List of sovereign states by formation date#Sortable list. They are duplicate lists, but it will require a great deal of work to preserve the useful dates and notes from that page that are different from the information here. Goustien (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

-I don't think they are duplicate lists. The Statehood list is telling us the birthdates of the nations and the events. While the Sovereign States list is telling us the Birthdates of current form of governments. --Hame fan harif (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

-I agree, we should distinguish between the political and historical measures. The current list addresses historical issues while the Sovereign States list should address the political issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.207.142 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

-The problem is, for example in the Statehood list the events about Iran and Germany is written by two people with different definitions of "formation date of nation". In the Statehood list what's written about Iran is acceptable but I don't think the formation date of Germany is the Unification date of West Germany and East Germany. Now look at Korea in the Statehood list, there's just one Korea, what can you do to merge this with the Sovereign States list? There's only one nation called Korea but two countries are Korean! The only thing we have to do is to correct formation dates of Germany and Britain and some others. I think to separate Sotland and England is the best one can do for UK (as they did the same in the Sovereign States list)--Hame fan harif (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

-No, I changed my mind. Because I see a lot of errors in the Statehood list that I have discussed them here. While errors in the Sovereign States List are much less, I still don't know the problem with neutrality of it! --Hame fan harif (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

———

Both lists are incomplete, incorrect, and contradictory. I think we should distinguish between three dates for each country and put them in one list. The dates are:

1. date of first written record of the name of the country / nation / state;
2. date of first establishment of a form of government;
3. latest date of either establishment of the current form of government or definition in the current boundaries.

Example United States of America

1. 1507 (word America first used on a map)
2. 1776-07-04 (Declaration of independence)
3. 1959-08-21, (Accession of Hawaii)

Example Germany

1. 100 BC (word Germania first documented by Romans (?))
2. 1871-01-18 (German empire proclaimed)
3. 1990-10-03 (German unification completed)

I believe it is possible to research all this from wikipedia, but it is a lot of work...

Shenhemu (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

__________

Both lists are incomplete, incorrect, and contradictory; but there's an Edit Skirmish out on the Statehood list! See it's history...
Well, I agree with you. But I think we should consider other definitions too.

1. The first time there was a government on the land
2. The first time a nation had a government
3. The last time a nation did't have a unified government of their own

Country	First state on the land	First national state	Last subordination
Iraq	3000BC Sumer (Not Arabs)	1921 Independence from the Ottoman Empire	1932 end of British mandate
Egypt	3100BC Ancient Egyptians (Not Arabs)	1000AD Fatimid Caliphate	1805AD (Independence from the Ottoman Empire)
Iran	3200BC Elam (Not Aryans)	728BC Medes	1501AD (Unified by Safavids)
Italy	Roman Republic	Roman Republic ?	??
Germany	??	844 AD East Frankish Kingdom	1871 AD ??

There was also a "Kingdom of Italy" Back to 9th cetury.
After all I'm not sure about the examples, they are just examples.
I hope Wikipedia herself hire some people to do this important job. Hame fan harif (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are right we could and should consider other definitions. However, we should avoid dates that will end up with too many question marks, and favor ones that are not too difficult to research or cause too many Edit Skirmishes. I am not an expert on this, but I think first written mention of the name, first government on the land, and date of establishment of current form of state within the current boundaries would be a good, solid, researchable compromise that might cause as little dispute as possible. What'd you think? Shenhemu (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I used question marks because I for one don't know if Celts or Saxons had a government. And if the culture and language of Italy is similar to the Romans, they are the same nation. I used question marks because I'm not good at ancient European history. But I agree that if it leads experts to so many question marks, we better not consider the definition (I knew an expert user on Wikipedia). Last subordination is important, it shows how long a country has been a unified single country, I don't think it's difficult to research. I think the definition of nation is not that complicated to cause edit skirmishes (as I mentioned about Italy). We should see how different "the first written mention of the name" and "the first national state" are, if they would be approximately the same, we can consider one of them. Hame fan harif (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Many lists

About the classification by continent vs. chronological - all can be merged in a single sortable table - so if the reader sorts the "continent" column he will get the first type, if he sorts the "date" column he will get the second type. No duplicating/synchronization of content needed.

I generally agree with the points raised above. I think that we should clearly distinguish (where we have the data):

• "first date of establishment/mention of nation" (and here we have the problem of different nations with the same name and/or territory - Ancient Egypt vs. Current Egypt)
• "first date of establishment/mention of state/monarch/government"
• subsequent Succession of states
  • change of government (regular elections; coup d'etat without change of the system; monarchy->republic or similar)
  • change of ruling power (e.g. conquest by some Empire, independence from some Empire, various types of dissolutions - from monarch personal union; cases like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR; etc. - here there are big differences for example between abandonment of a personal union vs. independence from a colonial power)
  • change of territory (loss or gain of parts) - special case here is the loss of all territory, but continuation of sovereignty in some way (often disputed) - like the Sovereign Order of Malta and government in exile (sometimes the exiled government later returns - double dates; other special cases like Palestine, Taiwan, other such states)
  • change of capital
  • adoption of first/new constitution
• latest date of
  • establishment of the current form of government
  • definition in the current boundaries (but here the question is how big a boundary change is acceptable to be ignored - e.g. it is clear that minor border changes like single island in a river are not important/routine)

We should choose a place (article) where each of these events should be mentioned (as it seems too much for a single article) - of course with links to articles describing the relevant event in detail. Currently I find the following articles and propose the following arrangement:

• List of historical countries and nations - for historical cases like Ancient Egypt, Shumer, etc., that have no current descendant
• List of countries by statehood - first mention of state/monarch/government (and maybe also separate date for nation in general, but only for current states - the rest should be in the historical article), linked to Predecessors article for the subsequent changes
• Predecessors of xxx (xxx - continents) - dealing with most succession-of-states issues listed above - should be list of administrative bodies dealing with the territory currently occupied by the state in question - without taking in account succession/continuity (but discontinuity should be mentioned by some mark or color), for example Egypt: Ancient Egypt -> ... -> Egypt province, Roman Empire -> ... 'Villayet of Egypt', Ottoman Empire -> 'British ruled Egypt', British Empire -> Current Egypt; or Inca/Maya/Aztec/whatever Empire -> Governorate of Guatemala in Viceroyality of New Spain in Spanish Empire -> Spanish Empire administrative rearrangements -> independent Guatemala; Persia -> ... -> Shah 'dynasty' rule -> Religious rule
• Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe - Predecessors of xxx article that currently don't go as deep in history as described above. To be expanded.
• Predecessors of sovereign states in South America - Predecessors of xxx article that currently don't go as deep in history as described above. To be expanded.
• List of sovereign states by formation date - latest date of establishment of the current form of government, linked to Predecessors article for previous forms
  • List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty - either all continents should have separate articles, or its content should be merged in the appropriate common world list.
• Decolonization-series - focus on the particular historical event of decolonization, not on every independence/formation/statehood/sovereignty (Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania)
• List of national independence days - related article, but it is OK already - showing official independence holidays
• Timeline of country and capital changes - The title seems to include all of the above, but I'm not sure it is done in practice. Maybe it should be changed (or make a new Timeline of country capital and territorial changes) to focus on territorial changes and changes of the capitals - the timeline format is suitable for these and they do not fit well into the rest of the articles. If possible new constitutions can also be listed there. Alinor (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am against merger since it will cause the loss of useful information and historical context. Anyway, even if we merge with all the info preserved, that would be no use since the article is going to become very long as all countries information is added and updated so we will have to split it again. It is better to rename these articles so that they reflect better what they contain also to link them with each other by providing a short explanation in introduction section of each one. My vote is no to merger. Thank You.--119.153.97.56 (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Too long: split

The sortable list should be split into a separate article (maybe merged with some other). The article is already to long with all continents together. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

195 ONLY!

While in the first paragraph it is stated that it is a list of 203 States, what I have seen in the sorted list is only 195 States, missing 8 are:

• Abkhazia
• Nagorono-Karabakh
• Northern Cyprus
• Palestine
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
• Somaliland
• South Ossetia
• Transnistria

Would you like me to surprise you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.131.120.28 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Those states are not recognised and therefore do not have formation dates because they have not been recognised as formed yet. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The list contains other states with limited recognition like Kosovo and Taiwan. Either we list them all or none of them.

On substance. Most (all?) of these listed above claim to be formed, to have independence days, to have constitutions, and everything else. The difference with "normal" states is that in the case of these 10 some of the others "do not recognize" the claims of the 10. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree too, though WP:I don't like it. We need to show the ten in italics or something, to show that their status is disputed, with reference to the SoLR list. --Red King (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the Sovereign state article says, "A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states, citing p. 187 of this book, quoting a snippet in a footnote there, and referring to the Montevideo Convention, Article 1 of which says,"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." (see this). Perhaps it might make sense to add another table titled something like Other governments asserting sovereignty, introduced by text explaining this and quoting that article of the Montevideo Convention, and containing entries for such governments. I'll note in passing that this could get messier;. One messy case which comes up here and elsewhere from time to time is the Philippines, which celebrates the anniversary of the June 12, 1898 declaration of independence from Spain as its independence day. Many Filipinos contend that the First Philippine Republic was a legitimate sovereign state, and some schools in the Philippines may teach that as fact. (see this) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kurdistan

The entry about Kurdistan is full of fallacies and errors. First of all, to this date, Kurdistan is still not a country, it is only a federal government which is part of the greater Kurdistan. Secondly, Kurds are not directly connected to Medes, as some scholars still believe that Kurds may have formed around an indigenous Mesopotamian substratum who adopted a north-western Iranian language over time, Maybe hundreds of years after the Medes' Empire. Thirdly, if even we agree that Kurds are the descendants of the Medes, still the Median Empire was something more general and not confined to Kurds, as an example Azeris, Gilakis, Mazanis and even the people of Tehran, Ghazvin, Isfahan, Balochistan and Semnan are historically Medes (In fact the whole of Iran except for Fars, Kerman, Yazd and Khorasan) so these people who are the larger stock of the Medes and today comprise the larger part of the Iranian population are also the heirs of the Medes' Country. Technically Kurds were only the nomadic pastorals remnant of northwest Iranian people who have recently settled in the last 400 or so years which contradicts the accounts given for Medes, which ruled over an agricultural society (Diako was first elected as the governor of a number of villages, which indicates that he was not a nomad). So in general, nothing can be asserted with certainty about Kurds or Medes, because of the lack of sources connecting these two entities or sources which address the essential continuity of these people. I suggest that for the sake of truth, let's just omit the entry about Kurdistan. I also wanted to say that I do not want to undermine the Kurdish Identity here, and also wanted to express how I love and admire their music and language along with the culture of other Iranian people.20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Why on earth should 1989 be listed for Afghanistan? The Soviets acted in Afghanistan as allies of the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan. There's other pretty absurd inconsistencies. According to the list, Afghanistan first became sovereign in 1919 because before that it was an informal British protectorate. But Bhutan and Nepal, which were just as much informal British protectorates, have supposedly never been subordinated to a foreign power. This list needs some reworking. john k (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between Afghanistan on the one hand and Bhutan and Nepal on the other. Britain did not recognize Afghanistan's sovereignty until the 1919 Treaty of Rawalpindi, and that date is still celebrated as Afghan Independence Day. Although Britain (and later India) had influence over Bhutan and Nepal's foreign policy, those countries were never occupied by foreign troops, and they remained independent. See the article "Protectorate" for the difference between colonial and international protectorates. Goustien (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the Soviet occupation 1979-1989, it's true the Soviets were allies of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, but this government had limited recognition, and the occupation was the subject of a series of UN resolutions through the 1980s. The US military venture in Afghanistan appears comparable to the Soviet one, but in terms of international law it may not, strictly speaking, count as an occupation or loss of sovereignty. Goustien (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a bit of info about this, with wikilinks to relevant articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

Though the map does give a broadly correct idea of what it is trying to convey, it requires a rigorous definition of 'nationhood', such as one of the columns used in the text, in order to avoid hypocrisy: from the dating of Iraq in grey as pre-1000 BC, it seems 'foundation of nationhood' is defined to be the first date an organised state appeared with sovereign territory in the present country, not the foundation of the current state - but then this does not agree with dating the foundation of Spain between 1200 and 1700, which would be accurate for the current state of Spain, but by the previous definition ignores the Visigothic kingdom of Spain which would require it to be coloured red... there are doubtless several other examples, but rather than specifics a uniform standard should be implemented.

The map was horrible and not even broadly correct. Portraying the PRC as 5000 years old and Russia as 20 is patent bias, but other inconsistencies and errors are also documented at its file talk page here and at wikicommons. I've removed it and nominated it for deletion. — LlywelynII 13:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wales: a recognised state until the formation of "Britain"

With referance to the above discussion under the heading "Mexico", the fact is that Wales was a recognised sovereign state until Owain Glyndwr's defeat at around 1415. This needs to be shown. If there's no objection (and I've never read of a single historian contending this fact) then I'll change the map myself. Maybe we then need to discuss other sovereign states such as Scotland and Ireland after that. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well considering that this is talking about modern sovereign states, then there is no need to mention the component country of the United Kingdom which are technically nothing more then administrative divisions with strong regional identity and a relatively large amount of devoluted powers (the last point excluding England). The UK is a sovereign state, while England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, thus, only the UK should be represented on this list. 91.85.170.200 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Map Age?

This map is somewhat out-of-date. It has Czechoslovakia as one country and Sakhalin (island north of Japan) as part of Japan (the northern part of it never was)! Elium2 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sort method

If the article is called, "… by date of formation," then why is it sorted alphabetically?—Markles 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is annoying, I came to this page looking for a list of countries from oldest to newest (or vice versa), and in that capacity, this list is completely unusable. 121.127.221.198 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

sortable table

I've reverted this edit, which made the table sortable. The rowspans in the table interfere with sortability -- click on the link to the reverted edit and try sorting the table various ways to see what I mean. I recently ran into this problem when I redid a table in another article, here, and worked around it in that case by using divs within cells instead of rowspans. That approach might or might not be workable here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For sorting, see the second half of this article, List of sovereign states by date of formation#Sortable list. Goustien (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Colours of Map - What are US and Mexico doing on 1000 - 1200 range?

Hi. Could someone change the colours on the map so the US and Mexico can be shown in the right colour? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria of datation of balkanic states

I don't see why should Bulgaria be considered as born in 681, when recognized by Byzantian Empire, and not in 1908 when its independence from Ottoman Empire, after five centuries of Turkish domination, was fully recognized by international community of nations. Otherwise, why wouldn't then Serbia be considered as founded in 1219, when king Stefan was crowned and Serbian church obtained autocephally. Considering Serbia, the date of 1835 can't be retained ; the independence of Serbia was only recognized by the Congress of Berlin in 1878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.187.48.70 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

MANY errors!!!

First of all, the islands of the Netherlands Antilles are not shown at all, and neither is their dependencies. (Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Curaçao, etc.)

South Sudan is also missing.

Please add these countries, and also remove Antigua and Barbuda as it's a country in THE CARRIBEAN (listed on this page as The Americas) not in Africa.

Thanks. Linux731 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now fixed the entry for Antigua and Barbuda, which for some reason had got added to the bottom of the table for Africa in addition to appearing correctly at the top of the table for the Americas.

As for the rest of your comments:

• The Netherlands Antilles no longer exists as an entity. However, neither it nor its constituent islands have ever been sovereign states, so it's correct that they are not included in these lists.
• South Sudan is to be found in its correct place in both lists.
• The Caribbean is part of the Americas.

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC).

Single table, single date format

Seems to me this information would be much more useful in a single table (not divided by continental region) and with a consistent date format, so that it can be sorted by date. 202.156.10.10 (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

See bottom section, List of sovereign states by date of formation#Sortable list section. Goustien (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom date

The matter of when the United Kingdom was created has been fought over with reverts, but it is best brought into the open.

All of the historians who have been cited on the article are writing specifically about Scotland or about the 1707 union, uniting Great Britain, so of course each will be talking about 1707 and they are irrelevant to the point of the creation of today's United Kingdom.

On 1 May 1707 was created of the kingdom of Great Britain. It has been argued, fairly, that this was the major achievement in uniting the British nation and at the time Ireland was already a dependency (it became legally independent in 1782). It is argued that since most of Ireland has since seceded, the 1707 union is more relevant to today and that we should ignore the existence of nearly two million Ulstermen and 120 years when all Ireland was within the kingdom and strongly influenced its character.

No doubt in 1800 Pitt and his contemporaries thought that the union would effectively be absorbing Ireland, though later generations saw it was not so simple: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was far more, with a new and distinctive Irish flavour within it and Ireland represented in Westminster at long last and participating at the highest level.

However, all such positions are merely political and social emphasis. The article tries to answer the question "When was the United Kingdom created?" That is not about narrative and interpretation: it is a technical question with a technical answer determined purely by law.

The 1707 Acts of Union without doubt created a new kingdom, which no one has questioned. The 1800 Acts of Union have exactly the same formulation: they did not annex Ireland to Great Britain and rename the kingdom, but explicitly united Great Britian and Ireland into one kingdom using just the same wording as in 1707. In law a new kingdom was called into being on 1 January 1801.

Howard Alexander (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand

Re the event/year for New Zealand, I think that Dominion Day, 26 November 1907, is the appropriate day for “birth of the current form of government”, as the Governor-General no longer had the power to disallow legislation of the New Zealand Parliament, as the Governor could do from 1856 (I think a few were disallowed, one I think being a Liberal (Seddon) Government law discouraging Chinese immigration). Re the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 (the “founding document of New Zealand”), the article on the Treaty of Waitangi says that in 1839 New Zealand was included by the British Government within the boundaries of the colony of New South Wales, not becoming a separate British colony until 1841, see Dominion of New Zealand. Hobson who had been appointed Lieutenant Governor under the Governor of New South Wales and also British consul was appointed Governor of New Zealand on 3 May 1841, although the Queen had signed the Royal Charter (for the Colony of New Zealand) in November 1840; see William Hobson. In addition, why is the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 (the title of the act and of the article) labelled the New Zealand Constitution Act 1947 in the table? Hugo999 (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

All tables are broken

When trying the sort these lists, the tables become irrevocably broken. ALTON .ıl 19:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of Rowspan breaks sortability. Two approaches to dealing with this are (1) eschew use of sortable tables where Rowspan is used and (2) use Div instead of Rowspan and sort by just the content of the initial Div where a cell contains multiple Divs (see the table in Conscription#Countries with and without mandatory military service). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oman?

Oman is missing from the first list. (Kinda funny that a whole *country* got misplaced!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.202.4 (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. Superm401 - Talk 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Europe and which islands

The list is split up by continents. They are the ususal ones (plus the transcontinental group) but for some reason, one continent is called "Europe and the islands" instead of Europe. I have not seen that anywhere else. Which islands are meant? Why isn't the other continents called "America and the islands", "Asia and the islands" etc., since both those groups have far more island countries than Europe? Does this have something to do with somebody in Britain not considering themselves part of Europe (despite the common continental shelf and swimmable distance)? I suggest "and the islands" be removed. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Date in sortable list table.

Re this edit, the table column is headed "Date of last subordination". If the date is the date the subordination ended, it seems to me that it should be headed "Date last subordination ended", or perhaps "Date of acquisition of sovereignty". I don't have time right now to check whether the dates in the table for countries other than the Philippines are beginning or ending dates of their last subordination. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Iranica source

I undid the change that claimed to be based on Iranica (I assume Encyclopedia Iranica). I don't see that cited anywhere, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources discourages citing tertiary sources such as encyclopedias. Superm401 - Talk 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)