Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Meaning of "nationhood"

What do we mean here by "nationhood"? For example, China became a unified entity in 221BC, but the current People's Republic controlling most of China was founded in 1949 (as listed on the page). Do we list 221 BC or 1949? How about successor states (e.g. Republic of China from Qing Empire) --Jiang 21:30, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why we have 1776 listed as the US date, but East Timor in 2002 - we need to set a rule of either declarations of independence, or facts on the ground, or both - mixing them is silly. Morwen 21:35, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

Morwen, your a tool.

I'm went on the most commonly accepted date. Feel free to make a change if for some reason you don't feel it is accurate. -User: Earl Andrew December 23, 2003 0:17 (UTC)

I'm not disputing particular dates, I dispute that it is valid to pick an arbritrary date and believe it to have significance. Morwen 21:02, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Well, these changes will quickly become confusing. I think it's confusing to have 1801 for the UK and a date in the 400s for France...France and England went through many government changes over the years, and it's wrong to imply that France has had 1400 more years of continuity in government than the UK. We could go with the date of France's liberation after WWII if we wanted to go overboard the other direction. Until and unless we have a clear standard for nationhood, I think we should avoid moving countries around on this page. It's a nice list, but at present is imprecise. I thank Earl Andrew for the work he did, and agree with 90% of these dates, but the controversial 10% will sink this page if we let it. I think we should find a way of not letting it. Hopefully we can find a simple standard agreeable to all? Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How about countries that were once independent, got invaded, and became independent again (eg France, Mongolia, e. Timor)? --Jiang 00:45, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'd add to that Iceland, which appears to be very young on this list, but in fact had the first representative assembly (the Althing) in Northern Europe (if you call Iceland Europe, and I do) at the end of the Viking era before being conquered by the Norwegians and Danes. I have no idea what to do with that. Does it matter how long a nation is conquered for? Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, for France it only lasted for a war, (world war II) and to my knowledge they maintained a government? Unless I'm forgetting another instance? -User:Earl Andrew December 23, 2003 @ 0:50 (UTC)

I fully agree that the list is unbalanced. For example Hungary has the date of its first coronation listed, but Croatia does not, and yet both were once independent kingdoms, both lost their independence, and both restored it later. That doesn't quite make sense. --Shallot 22:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or should we just copy the CIA (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2088.html ) and blame them for anything that's wrong? --Jiang 00:54, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to, partially because the first user to change it means it won't be the CIA's fault anymore. Besides, they would give us 1927 for the UK....blech. Maybe this is an impossible task. And re:France, it was occupied for four years, a reasonable length of time, and its government was a puppet Nazi state based in Vichy. I'm not saying I want to have France's founding as 1945, but it raises important issues. What counts as being unindependent? China's founding date also baffles me...why should it be shortchanged when Japan is not? This problem gets thornier and thornier...Jwrosenzweig 01:12, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No it doesn't give the UK's founding date as precisely 1927; some entries require and should have more than a single date listed. What about China's founding date? The Cia lists 221 BC. No new state was declared in Japan after WW2, as was done by Mao Zedong in 1949. If we go by constitutions, the latest PRC constitution was drafted in 1982 - not something we should note. --Jiang 01:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The formation of the PRC is such a dramatic change in China's history, that perhaps it is deserved its creation date as that of nationhood. From the best of my knowledge, the only thing that comes close is Japan becoming a constitutional monarchy. -User:Earl Andrew December 23, 2003 1:32 (UTC)

It is difficult to gauge how "dramatic" something is. The problem with listing 221 BC is that China is an article on the geographical and political entity and not the modern state. Is nationhood really the right word? List of countries by independence? establishment? --Jiang 21:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My source for the information used the word "nationhood" but, one could think of a better word I suppose. -User:Earl Andrew Decemember 23rd, 2003 22:01 UTC

In my opinion, this page continues to be confusing...we now have Andorra granted nationhood in the 1270s by a country (Spain) that, according to the list, did not exist until 1492! Granted, it's an isolated example, but I think this is one of Wikipedia's lists that is an example of why list-making is sometimes (not always, but sometimes) a futile exercise. Perhaps I'm just being a curmudgeon, but I can't see my way to a version of this list that I find truly satisfying and accurate. Jwrosenzweig 18:11, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another example of this would be Sweden, which broke out of the Kalmar Union in 1521 and is listed by 1523 when Vasa was elected. The Kalmar Union was formed in 1389 by Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The earlier listings of Denmark (980) and Norway (872) are quite arbitrary, and several similar milestones in the history of Sweden exist.

How much more sense do the CIA dates make? --Jiang

The whole thing is based on a very foggy notion of "nationhood", resulting in a very un-WPish POV-fest. The easy way would be to present the whole thing as a quote by the CIA, and end there. If we want to present this list as independent of CIA/USA-POV, we need to rework it. "nation" and "country" is not the same thing. "date nationhood" can only mean "date of recognition of nationhood", since nations are not formed on a particular day. This amounts to "independence", and in every case, information should be added concerning "recognized by whom". The 1291 declaration of Switzerland, for example, was recognized by nobody at all, and it had at the time much the same status as a declaration of independence of Abkhazia has today. Many nations were indepentent, but don't exist anymore today. We should either include "extinct" nations, making the list really open-ended theoretically including First Nations that were never officially recognized, or (more realistically) we should only include countries that are recognized by the UN today. In that case, only one date of independence should be given per country, if possible reflecting the formation of the modern state. dab 11:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The date of independence isn't a meaningful notion for most of the older countries and the date of formation of the modern state is too recent to mean anything. People in the UK or France don't think of their country as only a century or so old, when the state took its current shape; they think of it as a millenia or more old, dating back to Alfred and Charlemagne, or earlier. As for cases like Switzerland, the standards for recognition were different then.

What is needed is flexibility. In the country has a date of internationally recognised independence, quote that. If not, use the first date at which a precursor of the modern state (with a continuous history since) had de facto sovereignty over a majority of the modern states territory. That should close to the date people typically think of the nation as originating at, which is the target we should be aiming for. Carandol

fair enough, that's at least a definition of what this article is aiming at, although a difficult one, since it is a much more subjective question "how people think of their nation" than a simple date of independence.

Difficult, but doable. Not all questions are going to be easy to answer. What I've suggested is fairly objective, relating to political facts, but should approximate the more subjective definition.Carandol

It also begs the question, which nations are to be included. Only contemporary ones, recognized by the UN? nationhood had a very real meaning among the native americans, for example. Only, these nations were wiped out before they had a chance to be recognized by the UN.

The problem with those nations is that we have no good record of their origins. We could either mark any date not backed up by contemporary evidence as legendary, or omit all such events, but we shouldn't put things like the legendary founding of Japan on the same footing as the well attested American Revolution.Carandol

We also open a wide field for disagreement which date is the most relevant for any particular nation, especially for states that have sizeable minorities. dab 23:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So we record all the relevant dates, with short explanations. For Spain we'd record dates for the foundation of Castille and Aragon, as well as the date of their unification. Countries like Spain, and the UK, formed by the merger of states, do contain multiple nations. Carandol

I am not sure you are aware where you are embarking on, here. For Egypt, we will have 31st century BC, First dynasty of Egypt as well as 1922, independence from UK, as well as lots of dates in between?dab

With Egypt, there's no institutional continuity, so the first dynasty is not a precursor state, but I'm well aware that some might disagree. A proliferation of dates would reflect reality.Carandol

A very difficult and potentially unfeasible enterprise (c.f. the other objections on this page), compared to the straightforward and potentially useful listing of modern independent nations by independence date. dab

You could do that, and change the name of the page, but that would mean leaving a lot of countries off the list. People would keep trying to put them back on, with spurious 'independence' dates. Prevent that, and I'm pretty sure we'll get another page created listing 'formation dates'. Carandol

I don't say you shouldn't try to do it; it just seems that the "NPOV dispute" boilerplate will not be removed anytime soon... If we are to dive so deeply into history, it seems arbitrary only to include nations that happen to be recognised by the UN (or the USA) in 2004. It's doable, alright. And it's also possible to make it objective. If we don't exclude legendary dates, there will be no end of them, though, going back to aboriginal "dream time". If we remove all mythical dates, that leaves us with controversial dates. If we don't wan't to follow a central authority, disputed dates should be marked as disputed; that would force us to include Basque, Tibet, Taiwan and Abkhazia types of national independence movements dab 11:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to exclude legendary dates, or exile them to another page. Sticking to de facto sovereignty should minimise the dispute for historical dates, which aren't live political issues. For more modern dates, exclude nations which haven't had de facto sovereignty in recorded history, but include the rest, not just those recognised by the US/EU/UN, and mark disputes. In principle, that would include cases like Bavaria and Kashmir but we can begin omitting such cases and see if anyone feels strongly enough about their nationhood to put them in. If they did, they'd stay in. This seems nearer NPOV than only considering nations recognised by the US/EU/UN. Carandol

Table formatting

I started a new table which may be better then the current one (after it's finished, of course).

Date	Nation	Event
660 BC	Japan	Founded by Emperor Jimmu, descendant of goddess Amaterasu
301	San Marino	Founded by the stonemanson, Marinus the Dalmatian
486	France	Gaul conquered by the Frank leader, Clovis I
681	Bulgaria	Peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire
875	Bohemia (Czech Republic)	Borivoj I's convertion to Christianity
966	Poland	Mieszko I's convertion to Christianity
980	Denmark	Unification by Harold Bluetooth
1001	Hungary	Coronation of Stephen I
1066	England	Norman conquest
1143	Portugal	Peace of Zamora
1238	Thailand	Sovereignty won from the Khmer Empire
1747	Afghanistan	The Durrani Empire founded by Ahmad Shah

England predates 1066, which was the Norman conquest of England. A better date is either the accession of King Alfred, first king of all England, or the departure of the Romans, when many histories of England begin.

Split the page up?

I think this pages should be split:

• List of countries by most recent date of independence
• List of countries by earliest date of independence under their current names
• List of countries by earliest date of unity in roughly their current borders

etc if anyone can think of other salient characteristics. Thus for Algeria, say, we would have:

• Date of most recent independence: 1962
• Earliest date of unity in roughly its current borders: 1518?
• Earliest date of independence under its current name: effectively, 1710; legally, 1962

How else will it be possible to resolve the issues? Any ideas?--66.92.26.227

Agreed. Can you explain the difference between "most recent date of independence" and "earliest date of independence under their current names"? Most commonly, the official name changes when a new constitution is passed, etc. Where does that fall? --Jiang 21:36, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I propose "most recent date of independence" for when their current incarnations became independent; thus Lithuania would be 1990 rather than 1918, or 14-whenever. "earliest date of independence under their current names" would be for when something resembling that territory first became independent, eg 1253 for Lithuania, basing it on the original Kingdom rather than the modern Republic; this may often be disputable or not adequately known, but that can't be helped. I added the "name" proviso just to rule out cases where a significantly different national group established a country on roughly the same territory (say, the Mon in Burma, or the Hittites and Byzantines in Turkey.) One might also need to separate the lists by dates of de jure versus dates of de facto independence (for Lithuania, 1918 versus 1990/1991.) --66.92.26.227

Actually, listing what is traditionally celebrated as a nation's "birthday" or "independence day" may be more interesting, informative - and most of all easier - than listing dates of de facto establishment of a national state (whatever it may mean). So I'd suggest two lists: National "Birthdays" (very often it's just a year, no month or day) and Independence Days. --Kpalion 22:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm with 66.92.26.227, mainly. At any rate, the list cannot possibly be allowed to stay here, because it is not the least concerned with nationhood. Please, please, please distinguish between states (countries) and nations. -- Jao 14:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

then be bold and carry out the plan. there are no objections. --Jiang 23:54, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I think creating a List of historical countries by date of nationhood/independence could come in handy as well, so that countries of the past such as the Roman Empire and Parthia and even Hawaii can be recognized. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

For the correction of this article

For the newer countries, the entries are good (need recognition and declaration dates). No problem with that. But for older ones, it reaches the limits of the ridicule (sorry for the word). So,1st step is to see which countries CIA considers from that year. The other we must see case to case if it is really the same nation (and when they were recognized. We also should have 2 dates (declaration or emancipation - and recognition). I see a lot of missleading info. Can a person with some culture believe that croacia independent in 1993 was the same country from the 12th century, just because it shares the same name? -Pedro 10:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again with the Croatian case. What about all the other countries? How similar or dissimilar can any one of them possibly be? (That's 1990/1991, not 93, too.) --Joy [shallot] 11:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not only that case. I found lots of them! The most difficult to deal are France; Hungary and San Marino (this last case is easy - declared independence in that date, but recognized much later). That maedeval Croatia has NOTHING to do with modern Croatia, besides being part of the history of the country. -Pedro 01:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) How about England and Scotland? Arent they part of the UK? Why they are listed? That is pure POV. -Pedro 01:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Before 1200

660 BC - Japan - traditional founding by Emperor Jimmu icorrect!

221 BC - China - unification under the Qin Dynasty I'm not informed'

at least 2,000 years - Ethiopia - oldest independent country in Africa and one of the oldest in the world I cant tell

3 September 301 - San Marino declaration date

486 - France - unified by Clovis I Cant tell

681 - Bulgaria - unification of Bulgars and Slavs by Asparukh completly incorrect

843 - Scotland - unified by Kenneth mac Alpin not correct

9th century - England - Alfred the Great (871-899) the first King of England' this can be valid, if England leads the UK, similar case in Spain

10th century - Croatia - transformation of the medieval Croatian state into a kingdom under Tomislav around 925 completly incorrect

10th century - Denmark - organized as a unified state by Harold Bluetooth around 980 valide

1001 - Hungary - unification by King Stephen I I belive it it wrong

23 June 1128 - Portugal - from Kingdom of Leon valide

5 October 1143 - Portugal - king Afonso Henriques' rule recognized as independent

1156 - Austria - raised from a Bavarian margravate to an independent duchy under the Babenbergs I dont know

Grow up. --Cantus 01:41, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur with Cantus here, what you're saying is quite incoherent. --Joy [shallot] 09:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I changeg to more "neutral" words. Have you read the history of those countries? Who should grow up intelectualy is Cantus, that doesnt know the meaning of this and doesnt border to understand the total mixture that this "article" is. If this continues like this. I'll add Lusitania, ophiussa and oestremini has former Portugals. -Pedro 13:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, have you read the histories of those nations/countries? I really can't tell from what you've written. --Joy [shallot]

I read Croatia's, Hungary's and Etiopia's. Why cant you tell cause of the 91/93 error? For what I've read nether croatia, nether Hungary is the same state or nation. Especially Croatia. -Pedro 16:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So you read them, and still insist that they are so horribly different from England or Portugal or Spain that they aren't even in the same category? Am I the only one who doesn't see any sense in this? Anyone? --Joy [shallot]

• IN Spain there was a meger of different nations, Castille leading it.
• In UK, there was a merger, with England leading it.
• In Portugal nothing changed since 1128, just the form of government: monarchy (totalitary; liberal); republic (1st,2nd,3rd).
• Crocia was an ancient kingdom, that disapeered, became regions of Hungary and other states. Modern Croacia, is a recent nation from former Yugoslavia. Has every country it dates its roots from former states. In the case of Croatia, Old Croatia. In the case of Portugal, Lusitania (circa 3rd century BC - 10th century BC). We are teached about the heroes from Lusitania (has 1st Portuguese heroes), and we understand ourselfs has Lusitanians, in museuns, artifacts from Lusitania are especially showed. We arent the same lusitanians, nether has a state, language, religion, etc. It is important as a link to the past, it is a credible link, but we can not understand it has the founding of our nation or state. I'm not trying to offend Croatians, this info is very useful to the History of that nation. Has like Lusitanians is for ours. -Pedro 16:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But this former state was on the same territory that is today inhabited by the same nation, and the present nation speaks the same original language (I'm pretty sure it's similarly different as is e.g. Alfred's English and modern English) and is of the same religion. If we were talking about statehood, then they would not be the same because there were many different states inbetween. But we're talking about nationhood, and that doesn't require nation states — it can't require nation states, because the concept of a nation state didn't exist before pretty recent history. --Joy [shallot]

A thing's for sure. You feel connected to that former state. But if we are debating tribes or nations. You cant have a date. In most countries listed here, they are listed by independence (inluding Portugal); Spain by a merger. If Croatia is listed like that, and non-independet nations (like Scotland) then we will have a very confusing article. I cant date the nationhood of Portugal. Nether the Spanish and their various peoples. How can you understand a nationhood, by the independence of a nation /state at the first time, and not the today's independence?. Portugal is an independent nation state since the 12th century (at least since the 14th century, the concept of a nation (feeling different) has kept it independent from Spain. Has a nation, I cant date it. The country since the 9th century tries to get independence. It gained in early 12th century. The the title of this page is missleading. The best is to create a new article.-Pedro 23:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• by the way, most of the countries listed in here, are not nations, but independent states. This article is pretty messed up. -Pedro 23:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems apparent that you've missed the whole previous discussion on this talk page about how we may need several different pages because of different criteria used :) --Joy [shallot] 20:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I never said that I don't "understand" "today's independence". Indeed, if you actually bothered to look at the article, you'd notice that both dates for Croatia are listed. --Joy [shallot] 21:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• stop being nationalist. You know this article is BS. -Pedro 11:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What wonderful logic... --Joy [shallot]

England and UK

England is still recognised as one of the constituent "nations" of the United Kingdom, and there is a continuity of history in that "English" constitutional law, parliament, monarchy etc. remained English when Wales was incorporated and all became British after the union with Scotland. There wasn't a break with the past, just a change in name.

Also, there is no "national" day in the UK- there are the saints' days for the patron saints of the constituent nations, but these aren't public holidays except for St Patrick's day in Northern Ireland.

Meeting same problem while categorizing heads of states...

The problems raised by this page are to be met elsewhere... I have just stumbled on a similar difficulty today, when I tried to develop Category:Heads of state by country - how far backwards in time should you include a ruler in this category ? (A few hours were enough to be in conflict whether or not subcategorize Category:Pharaohs in Category:Egyptian heads of state, see Category talk:Pharaohs).

(This comment being also a little piece of advertising ! Why would not you add the rulers of your favourite country to Category:Heads of state by country ?) --French Tourist 16:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Issues with particular Countries

Finland

I would not list 1917 as the day when "Finland" started as such. The first times when Finland was mentioned as a separate entity from Sweden and/or Russia dates way back to before the 1500's. In 1581 Finland was already considered a "grand duchy" of Sweden. 1809 could be considered as one concrete date when it started existing as a separate entity, merely a grand duchy of Russia. By 1906 Finland already had universal suffrage (third in the world..), which could also be a date when the "Finns could choose their leader", meaning the nation could, de facto, decide for itself.

Greece?

This is a nice page. However, I have a question regarding Greece. In that article, there are three different dates given for Greece's independence--one in the opening section, and two in the table (declared and recognized). This article posits a fourth date. I know nothing about which is right, or how it should be handled, but we should have some consistency. Can someone who knows please check. Danny 11:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hungary

Hungary is a country of AD 896. My reasons are that Hungary has been a well-defined (constant) geographical area whose people has been sharing the same (unique) language and culture continuously since that time, and it has been the same nation AND the same country every since. AD 896 is the year when the Hungarian tribes conquered the area which became the land of the Hungarian Kingdom recognized by the Catholic Church (which WAS the de facto authority to "recognize") on Jan 1st, 1001 with the coronization of Stephen I (I. István).

Hungary is a country of 1918. This is the only one that I saw. You cannot date a country to be from 1000, just because an ancient kingdom had the same name. that is not the same thing. -Pedro 23:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden broke out of the Kalmar Union in 1521 and is listed by 1523 when Gustav Vasa was elected. The Kalmar Union was formed in 1389 by Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The earlier listings of Denmark (980) and Norway (872) are quite arbitrary, and several similar milestones in the earlier history of Sweden exist.
Swedens last real territorial change was 1815 when Prussia recieved most of the Swedish parts of Pommerania. Also Sweden gave up Wismar to Germany 1903, which had been a collateral for a loan since 1803.

Norway

Norway was founded more or less with the same territory it has today by Harald HaarfagreHarald Fairhair in 872, after the battle of Hafrsfjord. Norway then went into the Kalmar Union in 1389, together with Denmark and Sweden. In 1537 Norway became a province of Denmark, but continued to be a distinct nation with its own language and its own people. Norway then broke loose from the union with Denmark after the Eidsvoll declaration in 1814. The current Norwegian constitution was signed by the representatives on May 17th 1814. Norway then entered into a personal union with Sweden, in which the two countries shared one king, but remained independent, among other things they kept their own flags and constitutions. This union was then dissolved peacefully in 1905.

I dont even want to talk about Scotland and England! -Pedro 23:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Umm, what? England as a "country" was unified in 9th century by Alfred the Great. It has since been conquered, and had a couple of civil wars, but it's still the same country, albeit in political union with another (AIUI). Do you mean "nation", instead?

James F. (talk) 00:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Well the title is "nationhood" .Pedro 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should contact the jokers, the CIA, who compiled this list. --Cantus 00:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I cant believe in this, sorry if I seem offensive. From CIA: 28 November 1975 (date of proclamation of independence from Portugal); note - 20 May 2002 is the official date of international recognition of East Timor's independence from Indonesia The fact, is that the independence was from Portugal. Xanana Gusmao came to Portugal to discuss when Portugal would declare the country's independence - he choose the date! As for Hungary I searched in a Enciclopedia. This is very dubious information. And very stupidy, that will misslead people. I think it should go with a label "caution: stupidity" -Pedro 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

look: CIA, for Croatia: Croatia 25 June 1991 (from Yugoslavia) .. OOOps it must be another CIA! -Pedro 00:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please don't try to be funny, it's not. See the detailed discussion above. This list has problems, but we won't fix it if you mock one thing instead of fixing another.

(And, just FYI, both dates for .hr are correct, each in its context.)

--Joy [shallot] 11:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cool down people, please. This a hot page already, no need to set it on fire. As someone said way up in this talk, maybe it should be moved to List of countries by independence date, maybe even better List of states by independence date, and even then it would be problematic. Wich independence date to use? The self-declaration of independence? International (wich?) recognition? Maybe both... And what about countries that lost and regained it one or more time? List the last? List first and last? List all?

Why I think the name is bad? Given that nation "is a group of people sharing aspects of their language, culture and/or ethnicity" you can not date a nation. There is no way to say that on D day people felt like a nation and on D-1 day they didn't. Also there are nations that aren't, and never where, a state, and, thus, some states have multiple nations (see: nation for examples)

OTOH a state "is a political entity possessing sovereignty". The date of sovereignty, or independence, may be established, even if still with the difficulties I mentioned above, and certainly some more I didn't thought of.

As for the CIA as a source, I think it is a good as any other, for a article's beggining. After that we shall not forget two major points.

1)The CIA is, given it's nature, a POV institution.

2)The CIA is not an association of historians, so, even when in good faith, they will make mistakes - as an example of that I removed the list entry for 1910-10-05, Portugal independent republic. At that date Portugal did became an independent republic but was the successor of an also independent portuguese monarchy. Its the same nation, it's the same state, only a different form of government. Nabla 17:43, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

It is unfortunately quite common to say that Norway was a province of Denmark. This is however not nececarily true. But to say that the Norwegian nation did not exist before 1814 would be, depending upon your definition, even more wrong. This discussion surfaces once in a while when notable Norwegians from the years of the union are being claimed by Danish people today as being Danish (Ludvig Holberg, Peder Tordenskjold). It is difficult to know what they themselves thought. But Norwegian playwright Johan Nordahl Brun said in 1770 that the Norwegians had two fatherlands: One natural (Norway) and one for citizenship (the state they shared with Danes, Holsteiners and others). Others might say that they were Danish because they were subjects of the Danish King.

So that leads to the question of the "existence" of Norway.

The Danish kingdom was an elected kingdom until 1661. However the Norwegian kingdom was hereditary. This meant that the Danish Riksråd could theoretically choose someone else than the person next in line as King. This was used in the power struggle between King and Riksråd. However if the Danish Riksråd chose someone other than the person next in line the person next in line would still inherrit the throne of Norway and thus the union would be dissolved. This led to the Riksråd making Christian III promise to make Norway a province of Denmark (and not call himself King of Norway) before they would elect him King in 1536. This is the origin of the "myth" of Norway only being a Danish province. There is however no indication that this was actually done by Christian when he became King. On the contrary both he and subsecuent kings insisted that they were hereditary kings of Norway as well as elected kings of Denmark (and hereditary dukes of Schleswig and Holstein). The Norwegian Riksråd was however abolished so one might say that Norway lost its independence this year. But the separate hailing of kings in Norway continued. Norwegian culture, laws and organization continued. The separate status of Norway was still maintained and used to full in the process of creating an absolute monarchy and the abolishment of the Danish Riksråd in 1661 and continued after that. Source: Ersland and Sandvik, Norsk Historie 1300-1625, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo 1999 ISBN 82-521-5182-5 and Dyrvik, Norsk Historie 1625-1814, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo 2004 ISBN 82-521-5183-3 This didn't exactly clarify which date to use, but I thought it was worth mentioning since the subject was already up.Inge 12:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin American countries

I think the Latin American countries have some errors. Right now, the list seems to record the first time they were ever called by their present names in reference to an administrative reigon, but most of the dates of nationhood are actually dates in which they were just accepted into the larger Central American Republic or Kingdom of Nicuragua. Most only became countries in the 1840's. Maybe I will fix it. It's just that editing wiki charts scares me...

This list as it is now is good for post-colonial countries in the Americas and Africa but makes no sense for European and Asian nations. In Eurasia most nations were born hundreds if not thousands years ago, and practically all of them were divided, merged, conquered and liberated many times in their histories. The very notion of nationhood in those countries is different from that in countries like the US, Canada or Australia. For instance, you can't treat the UK as a single nation - the English, the Welsh, the Scots, and the Irish consider themselves separate nations and probably have different dates for nationhood. I don't know if I'd be able to correct all of these dates but I can give you one general hint. As a rule of thumb, the traditionally accepted "date of natinohood" for most European nations is not that of "independence" but that of Christianization (e.g. 966, not 1918, for Poland).
Oh, and forget about what the CIA says. Does anyone really think that Egypt, one of the most ancient nations in the world, started in 1922? What sense does that make?
--Kpalion 17:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• • Well, for a brainsless guy, it makes no sence at all. The fact is that modern Egypt only used the name of Ancient Egypt, it is completly a different people, language, culture, religion, state, borders, etc. Nothing is alike! Nothing! Christianization? Has far has I know, Christialization came to exist in the Roman Empire. The Romans were christians when the Barbarians invaded the Empire. You are all mixing up various things together. The only problem that I find here, is San Marino (is it from the 4th or 19th century? -BOTH!). And other few. The complex cases you should study if there is a continuum on the state or people. And not people that are distance in 1000 yrs, that just share some territory and the same name. THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING, NOR THE SAME NATION, PEOPLE, ETC.. -Pedro 14:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• You cant say France is a country from 1945, because the French state continued its existance then and centuries before. But You cannot saay that the "kingdom of the Franks" was France. It wasnt! If this articles continues like it is. I'll put Portugal has Oestremini (a nation with possibly 4000 years). Hey it was located in Portugal! Or should we base on 195 BC - the borders of Lusitania were almost the same has today's! Why Spain is made of the 15th century, there were kingdom before. hey... there were others before. It is known has Hispania since 1000 BC! -Pedro 01:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

early dates for Bulgaria and Serbia

initially posted to User talk:Joy

Hi Joy, Bulgaria's year of nationhood is 681 (or 680/679). It may have been a khanate, but officially Bulgaria started to occupy the territory north of the Byzantine empire after Bulgars defeated it, and the Byzantines were forced to sign a peace treaty with them. If you don't agree with this fact, then who do you think these territories belonged to? If Bulgaria was still a khanate in 2004, would this mean that it's not a country? Look at country:

A country, a land, or a state, is a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

Bulgaria was an independent political entity; it had its own government; it had its own administration; it maybe didn't have many laws back in 681, but I'm sure there was some order; it had their own people and military.

Please tell me why you think Bulgaria was not a country from 681 to 864. Meanwhile, I'll revert your edit. --webkid 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is another one of the issues with the vague definition of "nationhood" that we have on this list. If you're going to make this argument about Bulgaria (and Avala about Serbia), then we can't escape the question, what about all the other countries that had an equivalent status in the same time period. --Joy [shallot] 20:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that this should be about first state of the nation.

A country, a land, or a state, is a geographical area and an independent political entity with its own government, administration, laws, often a constitution, police, military, tax rules, and people.

In Serbia? 680? come on at least you know it..

[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 09:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not quite comfortable with equating states under rulers described as "knez" or "khan" to define nationhood. There must have been at least some reason to delineate those lower ranks from the higher ranks such as king or tsar. AFAIK, the various local dukes were often just competing warlords and didn't have a clearly defined independence, government administration or laws, let alone police and tax rules... granted, the early kings may not have had a handle on all that either, but at least the Pope and/or the patriarch of Constantinople thought they were worthy of recognition. --Joy [shallot] 11:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Serbia's date of nationhood

Why do you think that Serbia became a nation in 680? Were there any treaties with Byzantine or Bulgaria for example? The article History of Serbia says: The first Serb state emerged under Caslav Klonimirovic in the mid-10th century in Rascia.. Why can't I find even one match for "Vlastimitovic" at google? --webkid 18:54, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem is not only with Serbia, is in all eastern European countries, maybe because they are new and people need to have to justify their nationality or something else. Portuguese nationality is in 868. But everyone in Portugal would see this date has ridiculous. Cause the country was nothing more than a county, with scarce times of "real" independence (due to problens in the kingdom of Leon), like Castille (i.e. Burgos - other county of Leon) and Galicia (a dependent kingdom of Leon) have had occasional independence.-Pedro 21:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Serbia is that it appears (on the net) that there was no Vlastimitovic dynasty. There're 0 matches for this dynasty. Can anyone explain this total lack of information? I'm sure that there would have been at least 1 page about this if there was such a dynasty. --webkid 03:57, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You misspelled it. It's "Vlastimirovic". See List of Serbian monarchs. --Joy [shallot]

Persia (Iran)

As an empire and civilization, Persia (Iran) began in the 7th century BC with the rise of the Achaemenid dynasty. In 550 BC / 549 BC, Cyrus the Great unified Persians and Medes and established Persia as an independent country. So, can we add Iran to Before 1200 section? Farshadrbn 11:37, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• OMG!!!! But you can do it, there are other crazzy things in this article, that would be just one more. -Pedro 12:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the date of nationhood is accurate in the original article and these are my reasons: it is true that civilisation on the Iranian plateau and central Asia long predates Cyrus the great, Ilamites were contemporaries of Sumeria and the recent discoveries by Italian archeologists in Turkmenistan (the Bactria-Marghiana Complex) have probably stumbled upon the primordial "Iranian" civilisation tantalisingly suggestive of the mythical and avestan Aryan Vaeja (Iran Vij in Middle Persian). Hence the common claims on the Iranian web site of Iran being seven thousand years old. But modern Iran is a continuation of Iran Shahr (Aryan Khshathra- the Iranian State) and not Iran Vij (Aryan Vaeja- Iranian homeland). The institutions of kingship, the Iranian (Aryanam) vs non-Iranian (An-Aryanam) identity, the widespread implementation of the Persian language, the Persian calender and the standardisation of the founding mythologies of Iran, the birth of a national architecture, standing state army, the incorporation of the Zoroastrian hierarchy into the state, the model of bureaucracy that survived into the Qajar dynasty in the early twentieth century with modifications.... all date back to the unification of Iranian Kingdoms (Persia, Media, Parthia, Bactria...) into one overarching state. This did not happen with the founding of the Achemenian dynasty by Teispes in the seventh century BCE but by the defeat of the Median Empire by Cyrus the Great and the surrender of the remaining Iranian polities.

A distinction has to be made between the Persian Empire and Iran. This is similar to the difference between Britain and the British Empire. The Achemenians and later the Sassanids always made a distinction betweeb Iran and non-Iran. Although the Persian emperors appointed Vassal kings to the non-Iranian part of the empire and thus were honoured as the King of Kings, they reserved the monarchy of Iran for their person. Thus the beginning of the Iranian state would have to be placed at 550 BC. A Salardini

UPDATE: The Persian Empire reached far more than just Cyrus II. The Elamites, which were the FIRST known Persians, and the Persian kingdom. Which were around the 2500s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire

As you can see, right there. The Elamites were Persians. Of course, the Persian empire even extends MORE! up to 5000 B.C+

I made a change in the foundation of the Persian Empire. The page had Cyrus the Great founding in 648 BC, which was decades before he was born. The Achaemenids had ruled Anshan since at least 648 BC, but Cyrus didn't found the Persian Empire until 550-49 BC.--Syd Henderson 04:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Map image altered to reflect the true date of statehood for modern Iran. Since the map features countries with their modern borders, it would be inaccurate to use the ancient dates of foundation.Alibaba2000 22:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Japan

I have put in the accession day of Emperor Jimmu in again. The introduction clearly says that the foundation of ancient ancient nations can't be pinned down clearly (duh!) and that's why dates from foundation myths are often given. Besides, February 11th is a national holiday in Japan, so we might as well put it in here. Pilatus 12:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed 'traditional' from Japan and replaced it with 'mythical'; 660 BCE is a myth, unlike Egypt and China, for example, where there is historical evidence to support their foundation dates. Japan was a prehistoric society until the 4th century C.E. so there is no historical evidence to support the choice of this date. (Cripipper 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

I have to agree with Pedro, a mythological founder is not the same as a historical one. As a point of reference to my own area of expertise, the founding King of Persia in Persian mythology is Kyomars, now recognised to be nothing other than a corruption og earlier myths of the primordial mortal man or Gayo Mortan. Cyrus on the other hand is historical. A Salardini

Vietnam

Vietnam became an independent country after the Vietnamese people defeated Chinese forces in 939, and have continued to be an independent country continuously since except for a brief period in the 15th century when it was invaded by China. During French colonialism, it was still nominally independent. The current Vietnamese government considers itself to be the legitimate successor to the entity established in 939, albeit with expanded territories. DHN 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not wholly true DHN - Annam and Tonkin were indeed protectorates, and thus had a very dubious nominal 'independence' (although they had no control over foreign affairs, taxes etc.) Cochin China was an incorporated part of France. Cripipper 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Specific Versions of Vietnam?

It seems to be on there several times. Perhaps clarification would help. Just H^{editor review} 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand

The United Tribes of New Zealand declared New Zealand independent in 1835. Prior to this the various Māori tribes acted independently in their own districts. This declaration was cited as a legal basis for the subsequent signing with Māori chiefs of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. New Zealand then became a British colony until 1906 when it was granted Dominion status and began the march toward complete independence.

Since we are using the earliest date of nationhood it would therefore seem that the 1835 date is the most relevant in respect of New Zealand. I have added the 1835 date but I have not deleted the 1906 date.

Ben Arnold 01:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to NZ "independence" being obtained in 1835. The United Tribes of New Zealand declared New Zealand independent in 1835. Prior to this the various Māori tribes acted independently in their own districts. This declaration was cited as a legal basis for the subsequent signing with Māori chiefs of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. New Zealand then became a British colony implies that the colonial status of New Zealand was changed 1840 due to events involving the Maori population in 1835. It cannot be claimed that New Zealand obtained independent statehood in 1835 with the way the notion of independent statehood is commonly understood.Vanillagorillas 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As it is now, the New Zealand entries on the table don't fit with the ones for Canada and Australia. Canada has 1867 (Dominion status for the Canadian Confederation), 1931 (Statute of Westminster), and 1982 patriation of the constitution) listed. Similarly, Australia has 1901 (Formation of the Commonwealth of Australia), 1942 (Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942), and 1986 (patriation of the constitution). My understanding of the Independence of New Zealand article says that the analogous dates for New Zealand are 1907 (Dominion of New Zealand formed), 1931 or 1947 (Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947), and 1986 (Constitution Act 1986), but this article currently lists 1840 (Treaty of Waitangi), 1856 (Responsible government) and 1947 instead. Should the listings for these three countries be altered to have consistent definitions? Should additional dates be added? —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissolved states

The list is inconsistent with regards to the inclusion of dissolved states. For example, the Republic of Texas and the Dominion of Newfoundland are two examples of political jurisdictions which no longer have independent statehood. They are included in the list. Yet, we don't see mention of other former independent states; short-lived or otherwise such as Biafra, or the Republic of Manitoba (examples that spring to mind) If former modern countries are to be included, should it not be an exhaustive list incorporating all of them with the date of cessation of statehood or dissolution included? Vanillagorillas 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Iceland

Removed ref to Icelandic independence in 1918. The description of the "sovereignty" was pretty much akin to Greeland's current status vis a vis Denmark. Nobody would argue that Greenland is indepedent because they've had "home rule" within Denmark since circa 1979.

United Kingdom

I call your attention to the definition we are using in this article:

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

The name of the state, and indeed the legal nature of the state, are not relevant. What matters is that it is a unified political entity. The personal union in 1603, when for the first time the king of England, Scotland, and Ireland was the same person, absolutely qualified. No, the name of the nation was not the United Kingdom. But this is not relevant.

Look through the other states on the list and you will see this standard applied fairly generally. If you find a case where this standard is ignored, then it is that entry which is in error, not the entry of the United Kingdom. - Atarr (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. In 1603 no country was formed, simply a man who happened to be King of Scotland became King of England.

If you think this constitutes forming a new country then surely the Statute of Westminster 1931 created a new country when The King of the UK became seperately King of Canada et al.

Also, 1707 will not do as your own definition above says "approximate present-day borders". I would say that a quarter of an extra island is important. Thus on 1801 can be the date of formation of the current UK. Scroggie (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If the USA is down as being formed in 1776 when there were only 13 states, I think 1707 is the obvious date for the UK. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that US "Date of statehood" entry should probably be zapped. It contains no new information as it is the same as the "Acquisition of sovereignty" date, and of course the US doesn't look like that any more.

The word "country" had no meaning in 1603, and barely any meaning in 1707. Nations were personal entities at that time. You can't apply the post-1848 concept of the "nation-state" to the early modern period. When someone was king of three different crowns, that was one "political entity", which, again, is the definition we are using. As I said above, look at the standard we apply to other nations. We are consistent in this.

If we insist on the political organization of the nations on the list being the same as they are now, then the list is forced to follow every revolution and changeover of governmental structure. It would be this sort of approach that would compel us to go by the Statute of Westminster, et al. The acts of union were a drastic change of government structure, but what was one political entity before, remained one political entity after, albeit a more centralized one.

And quibbling on the Irish border is clearly a red herring here. If we insist on the exact dimensions, then 1707 and 1801 do not suffice, either. Only 1922 works. Having Great Britain under one ruler for the first time is good enough for approximate borders. Again, compare this to other nations on the list. We are being consistent.

The idea is to just note when the area was ruled as one political unit for the first time. The union of the crowns brought what had been seperate kingdoms under the rule of one man. Don't overthink it. - Atarr (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually answering Fishiehelper2's statement about the formation of the United States of America. Although July 4th 1774 is officially recognized as the date of the Formation of the USA, September 17, 1787 was it creation since that was the date that the United States Constitution was ratified and created the government that we see today. In this way we can also see the Glorious Revolution and the subsequent Bill of Rights in 1689 as the foundation of the current political system of the United Kingdom making Parliament the preeminent source of power in the Land and the creation of a constitutional monarchy.

But since the United States Constitution in September 17, 1787 is not seen as the creation of the Americas and the Bill of Rights in 1689 is also ignored in the United Kingdom, the traditional dates should be used, and those would be the declaration of independence and the acts of union respectively. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1603 can not be considered correct. This was perhaps the first real personal union, Scotland and England functioned completely independent of one another and it was a rather uneasy relationship between Edinburgh and Westminster until much later, and even then it was still hardly a happy marriage. 1707 and 1801 are the dates we should use. I have a proposition, however. Stating the UK was formed at either date seems slightly disingenuous... Scotland and England have histories spanning a millennium after all. The dates of formation of England (927), Scotland (843), Wales (1056) and Northern Ireland (1920) should be included to convey how ancient the UK truly is, anything else is misleading -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally, historically and going with tradition I would also agree that the Acts of Union is considered the birth of this nation. Ireland was still considered a territory of the British crown during this act, without getting in a fight, I would say that the Act of Union 1800 changed Ireland more than it did the rest of the country. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of England et al. in the list as suggested above - there is nothing intrinsically more notable about these nations than, for instance, the states of Germany which were largely independent until a much later date (all-be-it accepting the 'authority' of the HRE over them), or the nations which went into composing Italy. There is an argument though that there should be a page for historical states though - I've knocked up a mock-up at User:NeilTarrant/Historic_States. --Neo (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree the historical countries of the UK shouldn't be listed separately. After all that would not be the true formation of the political entity that we now call the United Kingdom. The countries of those inception dates bear little to todays nation. The earliest as I stated before would be the Bill of Rights 1689. Just like the erroneous date of inception of the United States as 1776, the traditional date should be given of when union of the two nations under the Acts of Union in 1707. And frankly I would be happy with 1689, 1701 or 1707 but the latter has more weight behind it.

Oh on the page you created, I can tell you that there was not one Unified Kingdom of France that goes back to the 9th Century it wasn't until the end of the 100 years war that you could even come close to making that claim. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well - it is just an example really. The idea is to better construe some of the complications of nation building - people tend to link the formation of France to West Francia so it is probably that this is amongst the first incidents in French history. There were probably events in between which should also be included and reflect the evolution of France from a highly divided Feudal state to an administrative central monarchy. In English history we may want to include the signing of the Magna Carta as well, reflecting the evolution of the English state. These issues can be debated if people think the article is useful and should be 'promoted' to a true page of Wikipedia. --Neo (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keeping with the spirit of the Article

Ok looking at the rest of the article and seeing that some countries have the Formation being 2897 BC (Viet Nam) I think that I'm having second thoughts! What I am proposing is following other countries leads:

• China on December 22, 221 BC Unification of China by Emperor Qin Shi Huang
• Denmark in the 10th century Organized as a unified state by Harold Bluetooth around 980.
• Egypt in 3100 BC Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Menes
• Ethiopia in 980 BC Beginnings of a state forms in area that will become Ethiopia (traditional date of founding)
• France in August 843 Treaty of Verdun, whereby Charles the Bald receives West Francia, the precursor of modern France
• India 320 BC Unification of India by Emperor Chandragupta Maurya
• Iran in 728 BC Establishment of Median Dynasty by Diyako
• Israel in 1006 BCE David consolidates the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah into a single state
• North Korea in 74 when Goguryeo under Taejo consolidates remaining states of northern Korea
• South Korea in 668 AD when Unified Silla under Munmu gains control of the southern portion of the Korean peninsula
• Myanmar in 1044 when Anawrahta's establishment of the First Burmese Empire
• Norway in 872 when Harald Fairhair creates the first unified Norwegian state by uniting the Norwegian petty kingdoms
• Serbia in c. 800 Višeslav unites medieval Serbia into one state
• Sweden in 995 Olof Skötkonung became the first king to rule both Svealand and Götaland
• Viet Nam in 2897 BC Rise of Văn Lang Confederacy from Văn Lang Tribe

So if conquests by a person putting them under one body of power would make the foundation of the UK as either:

• Alfred the Great in the late 9th century
• Athelstan of England in 937 after the Battle of Brunanburh the first ruler of a Unified Britain
• Henry II of England in 1175 by the Treaty of Falaise also a ruler of a unified kingdom.

Since this article is being specific stating that:

• Date at which the country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders.

and since

• Date of most recent significant integral territorial modification : Date at which country acquired its current territorial shape, with only losses and acquisitions of territories being taken into account[..]

I would feel comfortable stating one of the 1st 3 above as the Date of statehood I assumed that this article made some sense. But since my thoughts apparently counter the majority of the editors here I will happily keep in the spirit of this article and change the date of statehood to one of the above. Now Since this takes into account the most recent significant integral territorial modification I wont feel bad about the notable absence of Ireland if I include either Alfred or Athelstan but there is a notable bonus in using Henry II since the Laudabiliter issued by the (Norman-English) Pope in 1155 gave the English thrown the territory of Ireland. But since Athelstan is considered the 1st of a unified Britain and unlike Alfred or Henry that included Wales I will list his date.

I hope my reasons have been clear, Since the editors believe that the 1st ever unification of the territory, even if it didn't have political links to modern day (and in some cases have only a slight geographical link) then make 937 the Date of statehood since this at least is the first time that the all of Great Britain was under one ruler (aside from Rome) and Ireland would be a territorial modification that happened later. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a fairly strong argument for removal of the first column altogether - its always going to be contentious (although that is not itself an argument), for instance the Ottoman Empire considered itself as a successor to the Byzantine Empire, which in turn thought itself to be a continuation of the Roman Empire. I'm not sure that many of the arguments for links to these ancient historic states are any stronger than Ottoman claims to be successors to the Byzantines. --Neo (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's true that it will always be contentious, but as you say, that is not itself an argument. The Ottoman-Byzantine link is tenuous at best. The Turkey-Ottoman link is more solid, of course, but the fact is that the Ottoman Empire never controlled an area roughly similar to modern Turkey until after WWI. Yes, there will be disagreements, but the bottom line is we have a workable definition and we can hash things out, as has been done here.

UKP79, I agree with your logic leading to choosing Athelstan. That makes sense. If people feel strongly about the Acts of Union, we can include that as well, sort of like what we do in the entry for Spain.

As far as that list of early dates, I like most of them. I have problems with the Ethiopia entry (the country being referenced was in modern Eritrea, not Ethiopia) and the Vietnam one (that date has almost zero evidence backing it up, we should pick a historical kingdom). I also have problems with the 660 BC Japan date, which is also basically a myth. I will try to find more accurate dates for these three. - Atarr (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me being a little surprised but I find the logic strange to say the least. Athelstan may have won a battle but that did not make him 'ruler over a unified britain' by any stretch of the imagination. It would be more valid to consider the Roman occupation of Britain as being britain being ruled as a single entity (though even they did not conquor all of Scotland). Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Athelstan exercized unchallenged sovereignty over the whole island, which certainly counts for something. Rome is irrelevant because that was not a political entity whose borders bear any resemblance to modern Britian (and, as you say, they never conquered Scotland). And as I've said before, the name of the state is largely irrelevant. If Athelstan's or Henry II's claims are not good enough, then the union of the crowns should be, regardless of whether the name of the state changed or not. Again, look at the standard applied to the rest of the nations on the list - perhaps Spain, most notably, whose crown situation was fairly similar. - Atarr (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In 286 Carausius usurped power in Britain and created an independent state with himself as Emperor. He controlled what are now England, Wales, and at least the southern half of Scotland up to the Antonine Wall. I think he qualifies far more than some of those mythical dates given above for Japan, Vietnam, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh... Carausius is a bit of a stretch. Not only did he not control (or claim to control) much of Scotland, but these seem more like extended rebellions than a legitimate dynasty. It's arguable, but I prefer the date we have.

As I said above, I will replace the Japan and Vietnam dates once I have a chance to do a bit of research and find appropriate alternates. - Atarr (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And now I have. I think most of what's left is fairly historical. - Atarr (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that people like my reasons for Athelstan. How about creating another row for the 1st historical union and rename Statehood to modern Statehood. This should help clarify the issue. This would make 1707 the correct date for the creation of the modern nation we now know as the United Kingdom, it would at least put the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 as the correct date of modern statehood & make France the creation of the 1st Republic. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Surely, the date of independance should be 11th May 1867. 1839 was the date of Belgian independance, along with the Belgian province of Luxembourg, and was the date the Grand Duchy was separated physicaly from the Netherlands, but it was hardly full independance. 's-Gravenhage 13:30, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another Wacko request... hayyyyyyyyyy.. it seems this document best forgotten.

In Luxembourg, the year of 1839 is usually considered as the year of independence, since from that date the country was physically separated from the Netherlands. Also, betwee 1839 and 1867 Luxembourg was simply linked to the Netherlands in a personal union; but Luxembourg was not part of the kingdom of the Netherlands. Luis rib 12:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A proposal for settling the matter...

We could include traditional/historical dates for the integration of the nation, and second dates for the founding of the current goverment. So, for instance, Japan would continue to have the date of 660 as a traditional date, but also 1946 as the date for the establishment of the current government of Japan. Similar situations would exist for several European states. Bear in mind, I understand that it may be difficult to establish a second date for some states (who really knows when the government of San Marino was established?), but that shouldn't stop us from implementing this compromise. Justin (koavf) 22:03, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Not a very good idea. I start immidiatly thinking in the best example that I know, my country. So Portugal would have been formed in 1974... O_O or has the CIA put it... in 1910?!... both very stupid! So a 1946 date for Japan is just idiotic. Has a matter of a fact, and because Portugal and Japan are related, Japan only became a unified country when the Portuguese arrived there with their guns. Did Japan existed has a state before that? Ask a Japanese...

You noticed that things are not that straightforward, contratulations! As it happens, the Portuguese commemorate the independence from Spain on December 1st, the declaration of the Republic in 1911 AND the overthrow of the dictatorship on April 25. (Then we have the Battle of São Mamede and the Treaty of Zamora.)

Two dates yes, but for declaration /emancipation/soverengty and other for recognition by the pope/ UN/mother nation, etc. The state must have continuaty (being the same people, same culture, same language, same state!).

A thing that I'm surprised in this article are the American countries, why there isnt the same info as in Eastern European countries and former European Asian colonies? Didn't the native Americans founded some sort of unity? You can also put it here. Is really Amazing how countries that didnt existed some years ago, in here, they have thousands of years. And there are some that even dont exist has countries. :D The CIA is a very bad source to things - several incorrections and gross errors in many areas of the articles, but by faar is more credible than this ashaming article. The UN hasnt a similar list? I'm still waiting for a formation date of a country on the Dinosaurs Era! Didnt a monkey 100 000 yrs ago in Eastern Europe roared Ugga bugga?? Maybe that's the real formation date for the Tcheque Republic... or maybe Croatia... Sorry for jocking again, but the article is already a joke. I'm also in the ride. Ok, it is not fun... Where's Mongolia? As far as I know that's the real oldest country in the world. i'm not sure of that -Pedro 17:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===> A relevant example: China No one doubts that China has existed as a political and cultural entity for thousands of years, but the specific political entity of the Republic of China has only existed since 1911, with the overthrow of the monarcy of Puyi. Furthermore, the ROC exists on Taiwan to this day, but the People's Republic of China has existed as the government of the Mainland since 1949. So, there are three "Chinas": 1.) historical, feudal China, 2.) the ROC/Taiwan, and 3.) the PRC/Mainland. It is meaningful and useful to use dates for all three nations/states. This would be the sort of information that I would expect as a user clicking on a link called "List of countries by date of nationhood." For further information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_%28disambiguation%29. Justin (koavf) 18:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I link the idea of listing a multiplicity of dates - integration and founding of current government are good milestones, though there are many fuzzy cases. I'll start adding some. (I wonder if in the long run, it will be necessary to have separate lists for each, to cut down on clutter? Maybe not.) -- Beland 05:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• The republic in Portugal started in 1910. That date would be incomprehensable for any Portuguese if it is seen as a founding date and it is not ever used. People will think "stupid wikipedians". Just like everybody that saw CIA says "stupid country".--Pedro 12:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

=Egypt is now the runner up

come on people, we are reaching the 5000 BC date! What country will be first? --Pedro 18:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

VfD notice: page has been moved

This page was undergoing VfD at List of countries by date of nationhood, when PedroPVZ moved it to List of countries by date of Independence. To reach the VfD, go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of countries by date of nationhood. --Blackcap | talk 00:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning the article

I've started cleaning the article, if you know something about other countries, plz clean:

• Egypt; Iran; Scotland; Serbia (1st date).

there are a lot of problems left.--Pedro 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Japan: Emperor_Ojin, 270 seems the real date, the rest of the emperors are myths. Am I right?

Bulgaria: real date: 1908

Iceland: 1944 --Pedro 21:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

To the Egyptian guy

From the guy from Egypt plz calm down and stop vandalizing the wiki (namely Portugal article), and leaving messages as "Fuck PedroPVZ" or "Portugal is a shitty country". I'm not a kid to be upset by those messeges. And admit yourself, instead of hidding under an IP. -Pedro 21:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• he is also trying to revert the article to make Egypt the oldest country. But modern Egypt doesnt even has nothing to do with Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt ciesed to exist during the Roman Empire, way before the creation of the modern state, that just uses a name that it shouldn't use. Is like saying a potato is a carrot. --Pedro 13:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a bit less straightforward than that. In the Roman empire Egypt had a special status, and it was also quite distinct under Ottoman rule. In a way, the story is like Poland, which disappeared from the map for a century and then re-emerged in a different place. Pilatus 14:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So what do you suggest as a suitable date for Egypt attaining nationhood/independence? We have the revolution under General Nasser, the installation of King Fuad by the British, then there is Mehemet Ali, under whose rule Egypt became de facto independent of the Ottoman Empire, and let's not forget Pharao Narmer, who unifier Upper and Lower Egypt? Pilatus 14:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

From the Egyptian guy to PedroPVZ

Dear Pedro, this is a very very long message, but I beg you to read it till the end.

Firstly, I regret having vandalized the article on Portugal. I can assure you that I am far from being xenophobic and that I have nothing against the Portuguese people. I did so because I was really upset by your constant removal of the article "List of countries by date of nationhood" (what upset me most was the fact that you summarized one of your edits by saying that what I was doing was nonsense). I want you to know that, by restoring this article, I am not trying to make any country appear as the oldest country in the world. I simply think that there should be two different articles : one for nationhood, and one for independence, for these are two very different concepts (a nation is not necessarily an independent country, and vice versa). For instance, for a country like Norway, 872 should be the date placed in the article on nationhood (as it marks the unification of Norway by king Harald I, and therefore the birth of the Norwegian nation), whereas 1905 should be the date placed in the article on independence (as it marks Norway's independence from Sweden). Yes, I admit that it is extremely difficult to find a single date for nationhood (and the article clearly says so from the first sentence). I am also aware that not all countries can be placed in the article on nationhood (many independent African countries, for instance, cannot be considered nations, since they are made up of different ethnic groups that have very few common characteristics). However, this is not a reason to delete the article on nationhood, even though it is far from being perfect and contains many absurdities.

Secondly, I beg you to stop making arrogant statements about subjects you know very little about. Saying that "Ancient Egypt ceased to exist during the Roman Empire" is pure ignorance (I'm sorry I'm being rude, but you're the one who forced me to talk like that). During the Roman Empire, it was only Ancient Egypt's political status that changed : from a sovereign nation, it became a Roman province. But everything else remained the same : the Roman Emperors continued to depict themselves as pharaohs, the Ancient Egyptian language was still spoken and the Ancient Egyptian religion was still widely practiced. As for your assertion that "Ancient Egypt has nothing to do with the current Arabic state", it simply shows that you don't know anything about Egyptian history. Unlike modern Macedonia (which is trying to use the name of ancient Macedonia, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with it), modern Egypt is not "using a name that it shouldn't use" (I am quoting you). Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt are in fact the SAME COUNTRY, and any serious historian would agree with me. If you're not convinced, then here are a few facts you should consider :

1) The people : Egyptians living today are the direct descendants of Egyptians living during the times of the Pharaohs (Egyptians have never emigrated and have never been deported ; they have intermingled with other peoples during the centuries, which is something very normal, but they have never lost their identity). 2) The borders : modern Egypt's borders are nearly identical to ancient Egypt's borders (this is in response to Pilatus's assertion that Egypt, like Poland, "re-emerged in a different place"). This is something quite unique in history (if you look at a map of Egypt during the times of the Pharaohs, you will notice that there have been only minor changes in Egypt's boundary). 3 ) The language : Of course, you may be surprised by this, because most people believe that modern Egyptians speak Arabic. In fact, this is wrong. Nobody speaks Arabic in the Arab world. People speak different dialects of Arabic, which actually bear very little resemblance to one another. The overwhelming majority of Egyptians speak a language that is composed of 40% Arabic and 60% Ancient Egyptian language (I am not inventing this ; these figues are taken from a study by Mohsen Lotfi El-Sayed, one of Egypt's top experts on the ancient Egyptian language). 4 ) The culture : Modern Egyptian culture inherits a lot of traditions from Ancient Egyptian culture. This is most obvious when it comes to funerary traditions : the dead are buried in tombs that are actually small rooms (the City of the Dead in Cairo is the most striking example). Relatives regularly visit these rooms/tombs and leave food, exactly like their ancestors did during the times of the Pharaohs (this tradition is typically Pharaonic and is found nowhere else in the Muslim world). But it's not only limited to that : Egypt's national festival (Sham el-Nessim) is a pharaonic rite that has been celebrated without interruption for thousands of years, despite the numerous conquests. Culinary traditions are also inherited from Pharaonic times. And these are just a few examples.

THEREOFRE, modern Egypt is the same country as ancient Egypt. It should figure on top of the list on nationhood not because I want to belittle other countries (this would be extremely nationalistic, and thus contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy), but because it is the oldest unified nation that still exists today. Let me explain these two points : 1) Egypt as a nation and political entity has NEVER CEASED TO EXIST since it was unified by Menes in approximately 3100 BC (and this is a historical, not a legendary date), contrary to many other ancient nations that have disappeared a long time ago (in order to illustrate this, I am currently working on a new Wikipedia article that will feature a list of Egyptian rulers from Pharaoh Menes till the current president Hosni Mubarak, and you will see that there isn't a single period of time missing from this list). Egypt never disappeared from the map (unlike Poland). The only thing that changed during the centuries was Egypt's political status (from an independent nation, it became a Roman province, then a Byzantine province, then an Arab province, etc...). But the borders, the people and the culture remained the same (of course, certain aspects of the culture did change : Egyptians, for instance, gadually abandoned their old polytheistic religion). 2) Egypt has always remained a UNIFIED POLITICAL ENTITY since 3100 BC, contrary to many other countries that were fragmented and reunified several times (Greece, Italy, China...).

Thanks for reading my message.

P.S. : You will notice that I have only placed Egypt on top of the article on nationhood. I haven't placed in on top of the article on independence (saying that Egypt is the oldest unified nation that still exists today is true ; however, saying that Egypt is the oldest independent country in the world would be totally wrong). If you want to put a date for Egypt in the article on independence (and I have noticed that Egypt does not even appear in this article), I suggest you put 28 February 1922, which is the date Egypt was granted nominal independence from Britain (full independence was only attained on 18 June 1956, when the last British colonial troops left Egypt).

Modern Egypt is not the same nation as Ancient Egypt

Plz, stop thinking people are dumb. Modern Egypt has nothing to do with ancient Egypt, besides Modern Egypt enclosing parts of the territory of Ancient Egypt. It has clearly NOT the same language: the language IS TOTALLY different, the culture is TOTALLY different, there's a huge gap in time, the religion is TOTALLY different, and how can you say to us that it is the same nation? Do you know what a nation is? People and historians and everyone always make clear that Ancient Egypt is not the same thing as modern Egypt, that why ppl use "Ancient Egypt". What happens is that a country today just uses the Latin name of a previous civilization with a different name, which often means lack of a real national feeling at present (IMO). The Czech Republic is not using the name Bohemia, simply because they have a name for their nation, you can bet if they havent they would use Bohemia. And believe me they are much, much more related with Bohemia than Egypt is with Ancient Egypt. Besides (and again) Egypt is just the Latin name of Egypt, Egyptians named their nation by another name. I think everybody would like that the Egyptian civilization would still exist in the 21st century (or a variation of it, like what occurs with China, Japan, Mongolia, or the Roman Empire), but it is clearly gone, forever lost. And the modern Egyptians are Arabs, with a very distinctive civilization. I agree that some modern Egyptians may find the birth of their nation in ancient Egypt but that is just a sentimental feeling without any truthful relation, there's some surely. Portugal also traces its nation way beyond the birth of the nation (de facto), but that are just myths. Honestly, I dislike this article, because it is everything wikipedia shouldnt be. Sorry if I may seem aggressive, discussing serious things in English stresses me (language limitation). -Pedro 15:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I find the Egyptian guy articulate, reasonable and convincing, while Pedro comes off more like an elephant in a china shop or a child throwing a tantrum. After having carefully reviewed Egyptian history and culture by reading through multiple articles, I agree with the egyptian guy -- it is quite reasonable to consider modern Egypt the same nation as Ancient Egypt. Sure, a lot has changed, but honestly, what country wouldn't change radically if it maintained a distinctive sense of self for the incredible time span of five millennia? Egypt has never really broken with its past, merely evolved. This is unlike cases such as Italy, which evolved from the 14-16th century merchant-states -- even though Italy inhabits the same region as the Roman heartlands, you don't see Italians these days being as connected with the traditions of the Roman Empire as modern Egyptians are with Ancient Egypt. With Egypt, there is an unbroken line going back, and that is quite significant and unique, and is quite convincing. --Samy Merchi (Talk) 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

+I am by no means an egyptoligst but my laymans understanding of Egyptin and Arab hisitory leads me to agree with Samy and Egyptianguy. I can't think of another country that should be at the top of this list. But I do have a question. Could Babylon be considered as having a similar link with Iraq? probably not but it occured to me that Baghdad is one of the oldest cities in the world but I must confess my general ignorance of Iraqi history.::

Sounds good, but if we're going to leave the current date for Egypt, we need to delete the note about Ethiopia being the oldest independent country in Africa. Scrutchfield 01:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• You both must be kidding. Ok, your ignorance is your problem, and ignorance shouldnt be included in an enclyclopedia article as it is! Yes, lets delete everything that is correct, and put in here all the nonsence and fantasies. There's no direct link betw Ancient Egypt and modern Egypt. That's why historians use ANCIENT egypt and MODERN Egypt, to make a note that these are two different states and nations. You dont' find my reasoning convincing? I'm not trying to get you at my side, but to make a clear statement that it is nonsence. Just that. But Japan also uses a supposed Emperor and a supposed date as founding of the nationhood, so not only Egypt has that problem. That what was said about Italy is the fact of not knowing Italy or just plain... forget it. Italy is way more connected to Ancient Rome than modern Egypt to Ancient Egypt. Wayyyyyyyyyy more... there's even no comparison. So this is a list of who has the oldest nationalist fantasies??! Egyptian Guy is not by hijacking an article that you make your country older. -Pedro 02:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This article how it is is unnecceptable, but no one is doing nothing: A nation: http://www.tamilnation.org/nation.htm#Subjective%20attributes%20of%20a%20nation In a simple way: it is a people often with a common language and culture/religion or a evolution of that... China is an ancient nation, Japan is also one... Egypt is not. As I said I wish we could talk about Egypt as we talk about the mysteries of China, Mongolia, Japan... but we can not. Ancient Egypt did not evolve it died out. I would agree with Greece, but no Greek putted the Ancient Greece founding date, I would accept it, they still use the same language (an evolution of that), and there is a cultural evolution. My reasoning does not accept Egypt as such, Egypt is an Arabic nation, and Ancient Egypt is "just" part of its history. They were lucky there was an ancient nation that built that monuments for them and make the country known, they may relate to it, but they can not say it is the same nation; I don’t believe that the current Egyptian state endorse that Modern Egypt is the same nation as Ancient Egypt. We in here also see ancient peoples with 5000 years as part of our history, but we don’t see them as the same nation as us. Portugal as a nation (and a nation-state) that exists for 1000 years, its history and peoples go back further in time. But we are not the same nation, they spoke Celtic languages and had a Celtic culture; we speak a Romance language and have a Latin culture; we are much more related with people that live for instance in southern Italy than we are with the people that lived here before us, even if we still have a proven 10,000 years genetic and ethnical background. I hope the Egyptian guy understands this, it is the example that I know best. I would like this article informative and clean! I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW INFO ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES, CURRENTLY, IT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Sorry for being an elephant! --Pedro 16:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Ancient Rome was indeed a nation as well as a city. People were patriotic to it, it was also a state; there was also an ethnic element to being a Roman, with the Latin language and Roman culture contributing. It deserves its place among the nations. 204.52.215.107 14:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Roman Empire, Piedmont, Vermont, Texas, Hawaii, Carthage, Various Iraqi Civilizations, Etc.

I couldn't help but notice that Bohemia, which is currently part of the Czech Republic, is on your list. If we're going to list previously existing countries, we might as well seek the dates of independence of the above and other such countries. 165.230.149.164 02:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heading change

I liked this article and was pleased there was a majority in favour of retaining it. But obviously from the number of contentious issues that have been discussed, conceptually it does not sit well with some. I can empathise with the various objections to the extent that the heading does not suit the contents. I would like to propose a change of heading to:

"List of Countires by date of [unification or independence]" or similar.

The reasoning is as follows:

The current heading mixes semi-legal and non-legal terminology. "Country" is defined in its eponymous article in Wikipedia by reference to a geographical territory. That to me serves adequately as a definition to be applied to this article. It is a generic term and synonym to "nation" or "state".

On the other hand, "nation" is, in its article, defined as much as by reference to the identify of an ethnic group, as it is to the existence or non existence of a state. It is thus, to me, a more dynamic (but less generic) term. Finally, we have "state", which is the most formalistic, requiring as stated in its article, attachment to a particular territory and international recognition. Although not mentioned in the current article, its possible use cannot be overlooked.

The added value offered by this article is that there is an interest, from people like myself, in knowing when a "country" was established; that is to say, when did - from an historical perspective - an identity of sorts establish itself in a territory. Categorising this by way of "nationhood" is, according to the above definitions, unsatisfactory. "Statehood" is even less appealing. Therefore, perhaps a more technical solution is required, even though I concede that the process of categorisation is not an exact science and becomes less accurate the futher back in time one goes - since countries might establish themselves in any number of ways.

Even that is the case, what strikes me of the countries listed that the overall characteristic applied is the date of unification (in the case of conquest or agreement) - or independence (in the case of secession or declaration).

Conceptually the proposed title will cover the first countries of the world (city states, kingdoms, etc.) on account of their de facto declaration or unification of territories. It also covers newer states recovering or claiming independence.

The change in title is less evocative that the concept of "nationhood", but a change may help in meeting the repeated requests for the article to be cleaned up.

rgds to all, --Gazzetta 11:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

Okay, ive never seen a more POV-centric article on wikipedia - for example, the area which consists of modern China, or even medieval China, was not unified under the Xia dynasty, only a single kingdom within modern China was - under this definition, India could have been 'united' as far back as the Indus-Valley Civilization, perhaps 600 years ago - simply because the first cultural dynasties originated then. Under this definition, Persia was united several thousand years ago too, by the first Sumarian kings. This is essentially a place where cultural nationalists can compete to see who's civilization is older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.228.94 (talk • contribs)

Don't forget about the establishment of Israel, which may not have occured till the 800's BC, but as it's cited in Jewish relgious texts, occured prior to 1000 BC. The list would be better if both the establishment of the present country were given with that of the traditional establishment of the nation.--Moosh88 01:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We have made age-old consensus that Legends/Myth/Fairy Tale doen't count and should be unquestionably excluded from the list. (E.g. Korea's legend Kingdom even dated back to 2333 B.C.). FYI, all feudal lords surrounding the Xia State accepted the Xia monarch as suzerain, implying a loose form of unification of this proto-Chinese State. Please also kindly note that its the list of countries but not civilizations! Keep it concise---219.79.27.89 08:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted Vastu's changes which were more like POV-pushing/vandalism rather than a genuine edits. Firstly, before making edits please read other relevant article[s] on wikipedia. Xia Dynasty itself was not Myth. It was clearly recorded in the CHinese historical texts Shiji and the Xia Dynasty article further stated that

In 1959, a site located in the city of Yanshi was excavated containing large palaces and appears to be the likely location of the capital of the Xia Dynasty. Radiocarbon dating places the site at ca. 2100 to 1800 BC, providing physical evidence of the existence of the Xia Dynasty.<Sources: J.K. Fairbank, China: A New History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992, p.35>

Secondly, please also carefully take a look at the whole List before any edit is made. The List clearly shows that the Date of Nationhood for the NATIONS was basically counted from the date of political unification/independence, but not simply the beginning of Civilizations. According to the Indus Civ. entry itself, the Civilization was only a group of advanced urban settlements or a bunch of municiple towns instead of a State/Dynasty/Kingdom. NO evidence shows that there was any nationwide rulers/kings or any nationwide-unified government or any administrative division in this case.

It is worth noting that more than half of the Indus Civ. settlements were located in present-day Pakistan instead of the Republic of India. It means Pakistan and India are sharing the historical lineage of this Civilization. 202.40.137.196 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That raises the quetion of what relevance this article has at all - seeing as nations that didnt 'officially' gain nationhood at a certain point dosent reflect when they were first considered a nation, due to differing political systems - the Xia dynasty for example only likely ruled less than a tenth of modern China, if it indeed existed (a semi-mythical historical text is not definative proof, neither is a settlment). Since there is substantial proff that the IVC was infact a single state, and since it covered an area of India (and yes, Pakistani India), probably comparible to that of the Xia dynasty. Already this article is in many ways a farce seeing as a some of the states listed bear no relation to the history they sit upon - but this makes it slightly more of a farse, seeing as the same standards have not been applied to India. Vastu 06:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum - I have even provided a reference from a reputable historian, if that will help people overcome double standards? Since this article is as the intro said, mainly listing dates used for cultural propaganda and nationalism - the IVC is a good representation.

(see discussion - equal evidence for Xia dynasty and IVC being unified state - IVC bears as much relation to modern India (or more?) as Sargon's does to Iraq or Narmer's to Egyp) - this says it all - the argument for removing India seems to be twofold - that other states have more claim, and that the IVC was not a unified state or does not represnt modern India.

Infact the IVC covered an area of India greater than that of ancient Egypt or Sumer, is widely acknolwedged to be a single state, with a unique form of government resembling an early republic, and bears more linear relationship to India than any other state in the pre BC catagory - Israel was not even occupied by people who would call themselves Israeli for most of its history, nor does Egypt connect with an empire that ended 1400 years ago, or Iraq with one even more tenuous. Thus India has more justification for being there than most of the states on that list - either remove them all or remove none. The Xia dynasty, if it existed, may have been a small kingdom the size of modern Luxemburg for all archeologists know - thus the Vedic Purana dynastic records of India can be equally trusted - they list the first Indian dynasty as being 6500 BC - and at the very least, the Magadhan empire of which Maurya dynasty was a part existed since 800 BC or earlier - conformed by historians - date of 'unification' is thus the same for India and China - the date they were geogrtaphically unified (ive edited it to conform to this standard already) - and anything further back as mentioned earlier is a matter of either removing all the pre-BC states, or none... Vastu

Russia?

What about Russia? It seems to be the only country not mentioned here. As from History of Russia it could be either 988 as the start of christianity for Kievan Rus or maybe sometime in the 14th century for the start of Muscovy -- Astrokey44|talk 12:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

In 1918 there was a Azerbaijan Republic so the nationhood of Azerbaijan should be changed to 1900-1939. Baku87 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Iraq

It's the oldest civilazation it should be the top of te list!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.138.64.179 (talk • contribs)

Mesopotamia and the modern country of Iraq are not one and the same. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• this is a garbage article, it would be just one more non-sense, there are already a lot of those cases in here, we should include them all or remove them all.--Pedro 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern Serbia's 4 dates of independance and similar matters

Is there anyway we can separate the list into historical dates of nationhood/national liberation/independance and dates whereby the modern nation as it exists today in the modern world came in to being? There are several dates for more then just Serbia, I think we need to have all dates other then the most recent put in the historical dates of nationhood. The latter of the two tables should be solely for coming into being of modern countries that presently exist. Benw 00:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on a subpage (/simplied version)

Another editor with IP address 203.76.228.34 has been making numerous (uncited) changes to the simplified version of this list. In large part this editor has changed the dates of nationhood for many nations that were occupied during WWII, as if those nations (e.g. Japan, France) lost their nationhood during the war and regained it when occupying forces left. It seems to me that an occupation does not automatically cause the occupied nation to cease to exist as a state. I am not an expert on this topic, so I welcome other editors with more expertise to comment. I see it was discussed at length some time ago. --Ginkgo100 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

New Title proposal - ...date of statehood

Nationhood cannot be equated with independence of becoming a state. Take the example of the United Kingdom, which is considered to have four nations. For this reason I propose that this page be renamed List of countries by date of statehood. As this page has been around a while, I wanted to see if there were any objections before this move. William Quill 12:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some may suggest that the list be truncated to reflect the fact that the modern nation-state did not arise until relatively recently in history. Maybe a split of the list into Date of Nationhood and Date of Statehood (along with a discussion of the differences) is in order? --Mike Beidler 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia

Why is only Aksum considered? What about D'mt, the kingdom from which Aksum descended from about 800 BC? What about Punt, which most historians today believe was located in Northern Ethiopia/Eritrea (same area as D'mt and Aksum at their core) and which is said to have existed from 2500 BC? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The image

This image very strange for me. Why for example Armenia painted in red while Georgia in violet? Does the color indicate the first time of accuiring independence or the establishment of the modern state?--Nixer 08:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia

I noticed that the date of independence of Malaysia is listed as August 31 1957. Actually, it is the date of independence for the Federation of Malaya, which is now part of Malaysia. The Federation of Malaya joined with Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia on September 16 1963. Joshua Chiew 12:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spain

I think than the date of statehood for Spain should be 1714 (with the end of the Succession War and abolition of the kingdoms of the crown of Aragon). As the article says, 1512 is only the date of a dynastic union between some kingdoms (those kingdoms didn't disappear and continued with their own independent institutions and parliaments), so the date than should appear in the article is not this.--Jordi G 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How predictable your comment is, dear Jorge.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.252 (talk • contribs)

The previous comment is a based in the catalonian independentist thinking that try to state that Catalonia was independendet before the formation of Spain. Ii is just a case of political manipulation of history. When in 711 the moors invaded yhe Iberian Penninsula, there were a political union that was the Visigotic Kingdom that under only one king dominate the whole penninsula. Even more, the unity of Spain have a previous antecedent in the Roman province of Hispania. According to the general rule used by other countries, such as France, The proper date should be first time on 8 May 589 during the III Council of Toledo, when the king Recaredo declares the unity of the Kingdom (territory was the whole Iberian Penninsula) under the Catholic faith. In 711 the Moors invaded this kingdom and from this year to 1492 a long war, with periods of peace, was shaping the reunification of the previous kingdom. The marriage between Isabel, Queen of Castilla and Fernando, King of Aragon made the definitively unity of Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McVickers (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, the Australopithecus were already spanish!  ;-)

Don't manipulate history, and don't confuse the name the Romans give to the Iberian Peninsula with a Visigoth kingdom which depending on the period occupied parts of Hispania and the Gaul, and this with the kingdoms of the moors, and with the Christian kingdoms that appear later. --Jordi G 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor Jordi! Don´t you know the first capital city of the visigoth kingdom of Spain (Hispania or Hyspania in latin, its offcial language) was "Barcino"? I do not think the roman province of Spain can be considered as a "nation" but it´s clear that the visigoth kingdom is the birth of the spanish nation. As the article introduction says, its absolutely artificial to establish a concrete date. Some dates like 589 (III Council of Toledo) have a great symbolic meaning because of the religious and juridic unification but 531 is when the kingdom passed to be known as "kingom of Spain" with capital in Barcelona for a brief period of time and them Toledo (sorry catalan folk :) after the defeat and assasination of Almaralico. Teudis of Teodorico 531-548 was the first king to be accepted as "king of Spain" ruling over most of the Iberian Peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.252 (talk • contribs)

No it was not, that is just Spanish/Castilian nationalism. Spain, the modern country, emerges with the association, progressively under Castilian dominion, of some of the kingdoms and nationalities that themselves emerged from the Reconquista - another one is Portugal. Trying to establish a direct descent from Visigothic Hispania and modern Spain is a biased and historically false position. The Ogre (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

This article doesn't seem to have a clear criteria for what qualifies as a date of nationhood. Should legends of myths count? Or should dates start from the beginning of civilization in the region? Or from the date the country was unified? Or the date it was declared independant? The criteria seems a bit too ambiguous as it is now. Jagged 85 06:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that multiple criteria should be used - traditional date of establishment, unification, establishment of "modern" state, establishment of precursor state, etc. Different people weigh different types of events differently; Wikipedia should be neutral and just list them all for reference. It might be easiest to list the same country on more than one row, so the list is useful as a chronological reference. -- Beland 16:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't these articles be merged into a single sortable list like List of countries by population density? What do you think?

• List of countries by date of statehood
• List of countries by date of independence
• List of states by date of self-determination

Israel?

Wasn't Israel destroyed by the romans in 70? How could have statehood from 1020 BC?

Rakela 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for merger with List of countries by date of independence

I propose this page be merged with List of countries by date of independence as it attempts to cover the same topic. I see the retention of these two separate pages as a result of the break down of a conflict resolution process. We are not supposed to create new articles on the same topic when we run into differences of opinions. It would benefit the reader much more if we could work to create one page which reflects all aspects of this very complexe issue. Right now we have three competing pages trying to get their particular view on the subject across. I have proposed List of states by date of self-determination for deletion as it is the most obvious protest creation of the three. Inge 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Inge 11:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The Ogre 21:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - they are essentially duplicate articles. -- Beland 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support Very similar in so many ways. That-Vela-Fella 21:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for merger / new heading

I support the merger of the article List of countries by date of independence with the article List of countries by date of statehood. However, I do not agree with those who say that the two deal with the same issue : statehood and independence are two different concepts, as I have explained below (the former generally precedes the latter). Therefore, I believe that the title of the merged article should be List of countries by formation dates. I also wish to underline the fact that countries in the merged article should be listed alphabetically, for two reasons : firstly, this would be far more convenient for the reader of the article, who would be able to easily find the country he is searching for and its corresponding dates ; secondly, this would probably stop people from constantly editing the article so as to make their country appear as one of the oldest in the world (as long as the article continues to classify countries by chronological order as it currently does, people will be tempted to add fantasy dates so as to make their countries rise further up the list). In my opinion, the new article should include the 3 following dates for each country :

• Date of statehood : Date at which current country first appeared as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders

• Date of most recent independence : Date at which country obtained its current independence (the exercise of sovereignty must have been uninterrupted to this day)

• Date of most recent territorial modification : Date at which country acquired its current territorial shape (minor modifications and still disputed territories excluded)

I have created this draft table with 5 countries. I would like to hear other users' opinions about my proposal before working further on this table.

Country	Date of statehood		Date of most recent independence		Date of most recent territorial modification
	Date	Event	Date	Event	Date	Event
Egypt	3100 BC	Unification of Upper and Lower Egypt by Pharaoh Menes	February 28, 1922	Nominal independence from UK	April 25, 1982	Return of the Sinai peninsula under Egyptian control following the completion of the Israeli withdrawal
			June 18, 1956	Departure of last British colonial troops
France	843	Treaty of Verdun, whereby Charles the Bald receives West Francia, the precursor of modern France	August 9, 1944	Ordinance issued by the Provisional Government of the French Republic reinstating Republican legality and disestablishing the German-backed puppet government of Vichy France	July 5, 1962	Loss of the French départements in Algeria following the latter's independence
Germany	January 18, 1871	German Empire unification	March 15, 1991	All 4 post-World War II occupying powers (France, UK, USA, USSR) relinquish all remaining rights	October 3, 1990	Reunification of West Germany and East Germany
Jordan	April 11, 1921	Creation of Transjordan as an administrative entity	May 25, 1946	End of British League of Nations mandate	October 26, 1994	Signing of the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace, whereby most of the disputed 400 square-kilometer area in the Arava is handed back to Jordan
United States	July 4, 1776	The Thirteen Colonies proclame their independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain	July 4, 1776	Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain declared	August 21, 1959	Admission of Hawaii to the Union
			September 3, 1783	Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain recognized

BomBom 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to use that more informative & better looking format (even though the France & USA Date of most recent territorial modification is not correct). That-Vela-Fella 11:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very good. I agree with all the suggestions above. I particularily like the alphabetic colation idea and the inclution of several dates. As a merger in itself has been so clearly supported I see no reason to wait. I am a bit apprehensive with including temporary occupation as the last point of independence, but if it is done equally for all then I will of course accept it.

I have discussed this before with a user that wanted to create a divide between complete occupation of terroy including colonies and partial occupation. Making for instance the Netherlands independent through WW2 because some colonies were not controlled by Germany. While Norway was made independent in 1945. Svalbard and Jan Mayen complicates things by putting Norway in the not completely occupied category.

A user's particular take on territory also complicates France with regards to the last territorial change since it formally had a spesial relationship with its colonies. However I believe the UN has a good definition of non-self ruling entity we can use to prevent colonies from influencing those numbers.

All in all I believe these and other problems are better solved afterwards. First be bold: merge and change the tables as suggested. Inge 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive comments. I would like to briefly discuss the 2 points mentioned above so as to justify my choice of dates.

1°) Regarding the date of the most recent territorial modification, 1962 is the correct date for France since Algeria was not considered a colony, but an integral part of French territory since its official annexation in 1848 (hence its organization into départements and its administration by the Ministry of Interior and not the Ministry of Colonies or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). This situation is probably unique among former colonial powers, and that is why I believe the loss of the Algerian départements in 1962 should be considered a territorial modification of France (however, saying that the loss of Hong Kong in 1997 is the most recent territorial modification of the UK would be completely absurd since Hong Kong never was an integral part of the UK). As for the US, I wonder why That-Vela-Fella says that 1959 is not correct : which other date then should be included ?

2°) Regarding the date of most recent independence, the definition I opted for unambiguously states that "the exercise of sovereignty must have been uninterrupted to this day", and it is clear that France had no real sovereignty whatsoever between 1940 and 1944, which is a non-negligible period of time (a self-governing colony such as the Province of Canada probably had far more sovereignty than the nominally independent Vichy regime, which did not even control the whole of France).

Anyway, I thank you once again for your positive feedback. I will continue working on the table and expanding it until someone does the merger. BomBom 14:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by date of independence

These are the last two topics from Talk:List of countries by date of independence. The rest can be found here. I hope we all can work togeather to complete the merged list. Inge 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues with Both Articles

Yes I think that the two articles should be merged, but the definitions used are specious. Not to mention the dates of many of the countries. All this has to do with the clarity and the standards used to create this article and select the information contained. Declared dates mixed with legal ones. Past and non-existent countries mixed with existing ones. Parts of countries listed with new ones that contain those parts. It is all over the place. Before merging, we should come up with the standards and criteria for creation of the combined article. Also, the US did not become independent in 1776, it just declared it. Has anyone ever heard of the Treaty of Paris (1783)? Furthermore, it was the respective colonies that became independent. The US that we know and live in did not exist until the constitution became operative.Gary Joseph 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree: serious flaws with both articles, so clear and mutually acceptable guidelines need established and agreed first. Two main problems as I see it:
Firstly are nations whose character and territory changed over time(eg.) UK, where UK was formed by union of Scotland and England (1606), parliaments merged in 1707, Ireland was added in 1801, Eire (southern Ireland) was removed in the 1920s and so on. Clearly the UK remained pretty much the same political entity throughout these changes - suggest a minimum of two columns for current legal basis (1927) as well as original foundation in current form (1606).
Secondly is the issue of occupation, with the main issue being one of duration: Few would argue that the countries of (eg.) Netherlands, Denmark, France and so on were only "occupied" (although part of the Reich). The post-1945 states are clearly successor states to the pre-1940 versions, effectively forming a single entity in time with a brief hiatus. However, countries such as Bulgaria (which keeps popping up with a foundation date in the 7th century) were part of the Ottoman Empire for generations. Few people would equate the independent modern nation of Bulgaria with the pre-Ottoman nation: there was little political, social or economic continuity. The same applies to nations which formed part of a larger state (eg. USSR, Yugoslavia (Slovenia more obviously than Serbia), Czechoslovakia, UK (for Eire)).
Both of these problems can probably be best addressed if guidelines are agreed as to what (or which, in the case of breakup) constitutes a "successor state". 14:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Date/event of independence for Sweden

In the light of recent edits: In my opinion, Sweden cannot really be placed in this article as when the independence of Sweden began is unclear. The years/dates/events seen listed here have some flaws, e.g.

• 1521: The rebellion to oust the Danish forces, Sweden was merely occupied (since 1520), and this did not cause any formal change of status.
• June 6, 1523: The crowning of Gustav Vasa, formally marking the end of the Swedish participation in the Kalmar Union. The participation in the Kalmar Union did mean not a loss of independence, merely loss of sovereignty. The Kalmar Union was, at least in theory, an equal personal union of the three constituent countries. In reality the Danes managed gain a power advantage and thus the internal grievances throughout the latter half of the Kalmar Union's existence.

But what was Sweden's status prior to 1397 (the founding of the Kalmar Union)? An independent country. What else would one call it? Sure as one goes back further and further one finds lots of rivalry between the various parts, and if one goes even further back there are just the small separate kingdoms, e.g. of Suiones and Geats, but if one pushes the definition of Sweden as far as possible one could argue that the Suiones are the "core" predecessor entity for Sweden. The point is, one cannot really find any good date or event for when Sweden became independent. Saying that 1521 was the year is not descriptive enough. Sure it was a important event to end the occupation, but to say that Sweden became independent then (which it already had during the Kalmar Union!) is not quite correct.  –– TimSE 17:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, Sweden was never at the stated time under the rule of another nation. It had mutually agreed to be part of a union (like what Egypt & Syria did in 1958 to 1961) & then later mutually left it. All one could really state is when Sweden was formed as a nation & recognized as such by others. That-Vela-Fella 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:PM

A simple question - why was the page List of countries by date of independence blanked before the information was transferred completely. Maybe someone would restore the info, and blank the page only after the full transfer. It's quite strange that huge amount of information has disappeared (at least for some time, as the edit summary states). The redirect does not have information about the time it would take to fully transfer information, so undoubtfully questions will arise not only for me.

As a sidenote - I wonder if there was a proper WP:RM procedure followed, including interested parties I do not seem to find one on the procedure page. let me remind you, that WP:RM and WP:PM are official policies of Wikipedia.

Anothe question - I wonder if somebody has noticed these objections

Best regards. --Lokyz 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The pages were merged. There was a majority for a merger and plenty of time was given for anyone to give opinions. A merge proposal tag on the main pages and a discussion with vote has been in place on both pages for a long time. No information is gone. It is all still present in the history of each page. I did the merger now because a good proposal for the practical implementation was proposed. There is a lot of information that needs to be converted and that is a lot of work for one person. In order to let anyone and everyone help in doing the merger I did the merger without making a complete new list of countries and am willing to take criticism for that. I still believe that is a good way to do it as the pages otherwise would have remained in a less than desirable state. I hope you will join in and completing the merger :) Inge 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's be specific - paed did not complete merger, they're in process of merging. Therefore large parto of information is locked and hidden away. You might restore the List of countries by date of independence, add notice that this article is {{inuse}} and add a date when the article will be deleted, i.e. after the merger will be completed. Just a suggestion though.--Lokyz 18:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

World War II

OK, now we have a inconsistant situation on our hands. the Netherlands are not listed with the liberation after World War II as the last date of independence. The other occupied countries are. We have to decide whether WWII occupation constitutes a loss of excersise of sovereignty or not. Personally I believe it does. Using those dates does have their own problems,but we at least have to be consistent. Inge 10:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Updating table

Just a note to everyone that when I saw how much information was lacking from this table, I've taken it upon myself to fill in those blanks, mainly from items on the Wiki articles on the countries themselves, the country info boxes on Independence, the "History of [[Country]]" articles, etc. I've done Afghanistan to Canada so far (working on it on a sandbox area off my user page) and will upload when done (probably in a week's time). With very few exceptions (ie none so far) I'm leaving alone the information already intact, just filling in blanks. And, like all Wikipedia pages, it is free to be debated and changed, but I figured someone had to "be bold" and do it. Questions on my choices can be addressed after I upload. --Canuckguy (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Be bold and have fun :) Inge (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Further update, still working on the page, got as far as Oman, might have it ready by the end of this weekend. Just a note that I did decide to work on the table all at once, instead of pieces at a time (mainly so that I"m not focussing on working on past ones that have been changes as well as the current ones at the same time, making the project take longer), so I will be uploading a *big* set of corrections (that might even get the attention of a lot of bots out there) as I attempt to add at least one of the categories for every country (some two, some all three, none zero yet) based on Wikipedia articles and other research within the Wiki. Changes that have been made in the interim have been adapted in my list, although a few have been changed a bit in formatting if I feel the data could be better represented in another column or better date, and a couple will be reverted if I feel they are incorrect (but not many). So, this has just been a "heads up" to watch for the rest of the blanks to be filled all at once some time this weekend hopefully. --Canuckguy (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have no updated the table. To reiterate, most (about 95%) of the data is from Wikipedia articles, either the country's factbox, the "History of [Country]" articles, or the article on the event in question such as War of Independence, Declaration of Independence, or what have you. Sometimes I'd find three different dates in each article, I'd do a little research to figure out which is the most likely and use it (sometimes altering the incorrect article(s) to bring it in line). (The only disadvantage is that this article might not get updated if the factbox/history/event articles are later found to be incorrect). For some clarification of dates (especially if I could only find a year or month/year) I went to the site World Statesmen which has a lot of the data that this table has (including some of the blank table cells). It might be nice to re-visit that site and add more some time. I found the three categories (well, mainly the first two) a little confusing, so if you wonder why I put a specific date in one column and not the other, just ask. A final suggestion is maybe this page can be removed now from the "List of countries with rankings" template as this page hasn't had the countries ranked by independence for a while from what I can tell.) Any discussion on the content that I added feel free to speak up and/or change it yourself. I look forward to watching the resulting discussion (if any) --Canuckguy 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of most recent independence

While for probably 90% of the countries listed here this seems a reasonable description, there are a few anomalies for which it is just strikes me as being sufficiently incorrect to cause problems, in general where two or more nations have unified to form a third. To take as an example - the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Ireland, hereafter referred to as UKGBI], which did not exist before 1801 (being Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain) - the UKGBI didn't declare independence from anything! Similarly for the Czech and Slovak Republics, and (very arguably) Serbia and Montenegro a state split into two with neither nation representing a continuation of the previous state. Ethiopia and states after WWII represent further examples for which 'most recent independence' doesn't quite seem an appropriate term.

Now the troubles comes in crafting a neutral replacement term which will largely correspond to people's perceptions of what the answer should be - for instance 'more recent major constitutional change' spring to mind, but 'major' is quite subjective, and may result in, for instance, the US being listed as 1992 (?) when the last amendment was passed. But I'm sure we have more than enough creative and intelligent people here to create something suitable. --Neo 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that "constitutional change" would definitely get away from what is the purpose of the list, and we would be throwing several babies out with the bathwaters, to use a metaphorical term. (In other words, while it may fix UK and Serbia, for example, I'm sure for the other 90% of nations, like for example, Chad, who benefit quite well from the category as it stands, would get their meaning altered (as I'm sure they have had "major constitutional changes" in the meantime (especially if they are of the "volatile republic type" who experience coups like they were going out of style).

A possible solution is maybe to use the term "date of most recent independence/incarnation" or "date of most recent independence/forming", as not all the info boxes use the term "independence" either. Keep in mind that the data in this column also explains the choice, "Independence from France" tells the viewer they achieved their independence in the "traditional" way, "Republic of Serbia declared legal successor to Serbia and Montenegro" says that it was achieved in a different way.--Canuckguy 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some places where it's not consistent, so more work is needed to fine tune it. As for example with Syria & Egypt where the union they had was dissolved, yet it's not mentioned under Egypt's slot.

Although some may even go to include the other unions that later broke up (ie: the Federation of Arab Republics), it should be noted that they just "regained their own independent status". That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the though process

How would people think about replacing 'date of most recent independence' with 'Date of most recent sovereignty', or 'Date of most recent change in sovereignty', reflecting the concerns expressed above regarding the term 'independence'. Sovereignty is of course a complicated term, but the definition given in the article seems to accord with my idea of what the list reflects:

"In international law, sovereignty is the legitimate exercise of power and the interpretation of international law by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so..."

--Neo (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to be more clearer to go with 'Date of most recent change in sovereignty or independence status', since a few places never did lose it's independence but it's change of being a separate government than the union it had been in previously. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

state/country

This article seems to suggest that a state and a country are one and the same wich is quite simply false. A country does not need to be independant to continue to exist as this article suggests, that is only a requirement of a state. In my opinion this articles title should be changed to 'list of states by formation dates' or should be amended to include countries that are not independent. An example of countries within a state is the UK where the government recognises England and Scotland as countries within a country. By definition a country is a land mass with definable borders that has one of a number of traits such as common culture/history/religion etc, while a state only needs to be a soverign self administrative entity in order to exist. Also just to be clear im not mixing up 'country' with 'nation' as Im sure some will assume I am, a nation although similar to country is not a geographical entity as it includes dispora. For example there is a chinese dispora in many countries around the world but they can still be considerd part of the chinese nation, same goes for english, iranians, native americans etc. I am basing this argument on debates from other talk pages where it has been agreed that there is a difference between state and country. Thoughts? (Gcustudent (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC))

Within the United Kingdom the subdivisions are traditionally referred to as constituent countries, within Germany they are referred to as federal state; the states of Germany had an independent existence later (1870/1914 depending upon interpretation) than the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and until recently had more political power (they may still do for all I know). My point is that the distinction between a 'state' and a 'country' is not binary - indeed from your definition above there are levels of sovereignty, e.g. Puerto Rico - and will depend upon one's personal definition and reference.

I would strongly argue that this list should only list fully independent lands / countries / states - this is consistent with countries being marked as having gained 'independence from the United Kingdom' when for every country apart from Ireland they were never really a part of the Union, (sending voting representatives to Westminster) and instead were colonies / territories / had a range of relationships with the country or the British Crown. Otherwise where does one draw a line between countries / states including Scotland, Wallonia, Bremen, Aquitaine or even Calvados. If you can suggest a better name for the list which expresses this distinction. --Neo (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Spain (2)

It has already been posted above but no solution was found and now there have been 2 reverts about Spain and I think it is better to start a discussion to solve the problem.

In 1479 Spain as a country didn't exist. With the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand there was just a dynastic union which was not effective until 1516 when Charles V rose to the power. However, this dynastic union didn't include other constituent kingdoms (ex: Navarre) which today are part of Spain. "The word España...began to be used to designate the whole of the two kingdoms", but it was this, just a word. This word had been used historically to designate the whole Iberian Peninsula and later the "set" of Christian Kingdoms in this territory (see for example in James I's Chronicle, from XIII Century, before the dynastic union, when he refers to the different Kingdoms of Spain -excluding the moors territory). An analogy could be the use of Scandinavia or the Benelux. They are just names to designate a set of countries, with their sovereignty and their governments.

However, in 1714, this different kingdoms with different governments are abolished and one central government is created. Even though "de jure" Spain still doesn't exist until the Spanish Constitution of 1812, in 1714 there is already "de facto" a unified Kingdom. Hence, I think 1714 should be the date in which Spain "first appears as a unified political entity within its approximate present-day borders". This is also the "date of most recent independence" (Spain has been sovereign ever since then). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.3.140 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Year 589: Third council of Toledo of the kingdom of Spain (Hyspania in the latin dialect used then as "official" language. Year 531: Visigoths defeated at Narbona, Teudis or Teodorico establishes the capital city of the "kingdom of Spain" in Barcino (Barcelona). The Visigoths lost almost every territory they kept north of the Pyrenees and thereby the kingdom passed to be known and refered to as "kingdom" of Spain.

About the Crown of Aragon institutions abolition in 1714 its a symbolic date as most of them, just like many Castillian and Leonese ones, where inoperative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.252 (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the situation goes along the same reasoning as that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain where there was a dynastic union & a political union formalized by governmental Acts many years later. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone considers that Spain as state existed in 1479, he must consider Naples, Sicily, Flanders and other territories as part of Spain too. At that age were only different kingdoms under the same king, and Spain only the name given to the Iberian Peninsula, including Portugal.--Jordi G (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Austria is listed as 1804, Belarus in 1918, Belgium 1790, Bosnia Hercegovina 1129, Brazil 1549, Bulgaria 632...and so on. So what? The article is not about countries formation in their current shape. Just countries formation by dates. See presentism per my comments below. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of people considering that Spain as a state existed in 1479 and those people include all the relevant historians in the matter.

For some reason, the dominant POV in this question here has been that of dynastic union being worth nothing, like if dynastic unions were made out of whim, without both counterparts having weighted the implications, like if they amounted to basically nothing. From this POV it is inferred the so-called consequence that dynastic unions can not have any legal consequences nor historical relevance. That is quite wrong.

The 'Spain' bit looks quite messy as it is now, I guess to accomodate the POV of regional nationalist user who follow this view expressed above. Their point is understood and that is why I have no problems in keeping the messy present redaction (including many so-called formation dates, the latest, the better for them) even though it would look much more neat (and still historically exact) to keep the oldest date available. But what is a serious breach of NPOV is concealing (as it has been a long time) the dynastic union fact and its relevance.

These latter day users have their POV and it has to be respected, but that shouldnt mean that their POV has to be imposed, nor that is necessarily right. They may want to pay a look at the Britannica reference stating The reasons that led John II of Aragon to arrange the marriage of his son and heir, Ferdinand, with Isabella of Castile in 1469 were essentially tactical: he needed Castilian support against French aggression in the Pyrenees.

In other words, these users are suffering a severe case of presentism or looking at the past with their current nationalist eyes. What now Catalan nationalists frown upon was much sought after by their forefathers back in the day...

Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 12:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In 1898 Cuba and Puerto Rico were considered spanish provinces. With the same status than (for example) the provinces of Malaga, Segovia, Tarragona or Tenerife —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.0.252 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Algeria a French province? Well... go ask the Algerians!!!

Algeria can not be considered as an integral part of France. At present the article does so, and in a discussion above there are some positions defending that. Lots of European colonial powers considered their colonies as provinces (namely in the 20th century, as a strategy to curb anti-colonialism and the independance movements). A user, Toniher, is already trying to put Spain's last territorial change as being the loss of the province of Western Sahara (Ifni). If such a thing goes on, I will go on to change the entry for Portugal, since the Portuguese regime up to 1974 considered all of the Portuguese colonies (Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Eastern Timor and Macau) as provinces! Come on people...! Some good sense is appreciated, don't you think? I'm not just yet changing the entry for France, I'll wait for your comments. But let's be reasonable! The Ogre (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Toniher... Even the article on Ifni says: "During Franco's dictatorship, the colony was made a province to stop United Nations criticism on decolonization." Come on...! A good catalan like you defending Franco?!?! Just kidding... The Ogre (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a historical discussion, and I would only write down facts, and of course, I'm not defending colonialism nor Francoism ;). We should not try to reflect history according to present country-state situation, but considering the actual succession of events. You should actually change this in Portugal if these territories were considered provinces by the Portuguese regime. The point is that Ifni was made a province. We might discuss about ONU role in this discussion, but we would face the same problems before ONU creation. For instance, some Catalonian territories under Spanish dominion became French departments during Peninsular War. --Toniher (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Toniher... one of Ifni's categories is even Former Spanish colonies! Come on...! The Ogre (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what's confusing here then. If a place like Algeria wasn't legally created an integral province, then why is it mentioned as such? Are not the current overseas provinces of France in the same situation also? It doesn't seem right to pick & choose what is or isn't if places that were formerly colonies & became a part of the respective "motherland's" territorial region. Asking Algerians now about it won't change the fact of what had happened in the past governmental actions, thus we got to stay consistent here. The same would apply to Spain & even Portugal (plus any other colonizing power) that had changed the legal stance of it's colonial possessions' status. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Colonies

I think this can be easily solved by adding a sentance in the description along the lines of: "Colonies, including those labelled by the colonial power as provinces, are not included in the dates of countries." I believe there is no real debate in objective history or political sciences that for instance Algeria was a colony even though France called it a province.Inge (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly in the previous section. The Ogre (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand you both, but we should be careful about this and we should try not to be biased, since territories that were formerly considered «integral part of the nation», that is provinces or so, have been later considered colonies. For instance, if presently under Spanish sovereignity Ceuta and Melilla citites become Morocco posessions, I wonder whether they are going to be classified as Spanish former colonies in Wikipedia...

Hence, in order to be impartial, we should take into account in this table all territories which were considered as provinces (or alike), regardless if they were even later described as colonies by the very same state. --Toniher (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If this has been now put in place, then why wasn't changes done in regards to France, Spain & the Netherlands? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you find discrepancies why not fix them.Inge (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account all territories which were considered as provinces will create unfair biases. Two countries both having colonies will be treated differently just because one attemted to hold on to its colonies by calling them provinces. There is at present not a big disagreement in the scolarly communities dealing with this topic on which territories were colonies or not. We create a fair and unbiased list by treating all colonies and colonial powers the same way i.e. disregarding paper resolutions on the formal status of the colony.Inge (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5