Talk:List of sovereign states by date of formation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Philippines and 'Date of most recent territorial modification'

The table heading bits saying Date in this article have always confused me; five of the seven headings contain the word Date. The content of the cells in those columns sometimes includes dates and sometimes not.

Specifically for the Philippines in the List -> Asia table, though, I'm questioning the 1930 date. The supporting sources cited make it clear that this refers to the Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (1930), which modified the territorial extent of the Philippines. As detailed in the Date of most recent territorial modification column, one cited source says, "The sovereignty of a State is co-extensive with its territorial limits." That seems to explain why that date 1930 might be related to acquisition of sovereignty (though the Philippines was a U.S. territory at the time, not a sovereign state). Continuing that thinking about territorial changes, in 2012 the U.N. approved a claim by the Philippines to the Benham Rise as part of its continental shelf. I take that to imply that the waters above the Rise thereby became part of the territorial waters of the Philippines (which had became independent in 1946). Quoting from the Territorial waters article: "The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, ...". Therefore, it seems to me that, following on the reasoning about the 1930 date, the most recent territorial modification for the Philippines was 2012, not 1930. I have edited the table row for the Philippines to reflect this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Date format and other formatting

I've started work on fixing the date formats. Many entries were using plain text (in various different formats), rather than the using dts (sortable date) template. So far I've done the final "sortable list" table - hopefully I'll get the others done before too long. I've also changed all "c. date" entries to "date (approx.), because putting the c. at the start meant they didn't sort correctly. Iapetus (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd imagine some soul has made this point before but, any chance of there being a single table instead of multiple based on continents?? OhNoOhDear 20:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
See here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Very confusing article

This article is very confusing to navigate. Can we bring back List of countries by date of independence? I just want a list I can quickly look at to see when countries first formed, not whatever this mess that doesn't even fit on one screen width is.  Nixinova  T C   06:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

What certainly needs to be changed are columns headed 'date'. Date of what? Especially when a following column is headed "date of acquisition of sovereignty".
But Nixinova might need a new article that summarises this one. But good luck with that - taking my own country, Ireland, the answer to the question might be any of:
So which one did you want? Why this and not that? I rather suspect that the process of decolonisation in other states was equally messy. I am afraid that the reason this article is confusing is that history is rather like that. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia

Good luck with this. If it doesn't work out, perhaps add a note something like "See the Macedonia naming dispute article". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit that deleted my contribution

Hi User:WilhelmsCamel,

Why did you delete my contribution that lists Israel's acquisition of sovereignty as 970 BC? I'm not a Zionist or anything, but the modern state of Israel does base its claim of sovereignty on ancient history, which includes the founding of a Kingdom of Israel in ca. 900 BC. You're welcome to modify my entry by listing an alternative historical date, but please do not delete my entry outright. Thanks.

Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. What I saw it was like writing the date of establishment as the first evidence of a country existing in the region would be inaccurate, as if writing the date of establishment for Egypt as ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia for Iraq. I am sorry for the inconvenience. WilhelmsCamel (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Date of China's acquisition of sovereignty

Why is China's acquisition of sovereignty said to be the date the Shang dynasty was formed? China was occupied by Mongolia for an entire century during the middle ages... Shouldn't that mean that China wasn't an independent country during that time, and hence acquired its independence with the collapse of the Mongolian Empire? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

For that matter, Japan was occupied by the United States of America for a few years after WWII, and may or may not have lost its sovereignty during this time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jargo Nautilus, I am the one who changed the date for China. As per my discussion with WilhelmsCamel above, you are welcome to add an alternative date that you think is right for Japan or China (or both). I simply went to a lot of these countries' Wikipedia page and used the first archeologically confirmed date listed there (this applies to Iran and India too). BTW, I did not use the founding date of the Shang but used the date of the late Shang. Thanks. Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
My comment is referencing the fact that many countries have their dates of their establishment listed as "independence from X country" rather than "first government established". Following this logic, China's independence was achieved circa 1300 AD and Japan's independence was achieved in 1952. I've also noticed that Taiwan is in the list, but based on the political status of Taiwan, it is quite difficult to pinpoint a definitive date of independence. The article simply lists the establishment of the Kingdom of Tungning as the date of Taiwan's establishment as an independent country, but technically this is false. The modern country of Taiwan is technically not an independent country. It has never declared independence; the government ruling Taiwan is known as the "Republic of China" and its date of establishment was actually 1912, but since it claims to represent "China", its true date of independence would also be circa 1300 AD. Legally speaking, Taiwan's true date of independence is 1952, which is the same year that Japan acquired its independence (Treaty of San Francisco), though Taiwan has been occupied by China ever since WWII ended, so nothing changed in reality in 1952, only in name. Taiwan was ruled by a Kuomintang military dictatorship from 1949 until 1987, so it's de facto date of independence would be 1987, or perhaps in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held. Edit: Alternatively, Taiwan's date of independence can be considered to be the year 1945, which is when it was "liberated" from Japanese occupation (bear in mind that it was part of China for 200+ years and part of Japan for 50 years, after the collapse of the Kingdom of Tungning). However, ever since 1945, Taiwan has been occupied by the Republic of China, so it was never truly independent during this time; on the other hand, the Republic of China never gained de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, only de facto. Edit2: Again, alternatively, most people would say that Taiwan became a de facto independent country in 1949, which is when the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan and lost control of mainland China. So, I've listed seven possible dates that could be considered Taiwan's date of establishment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jargo Nautilus, you're welcome to add all those dates, your favorite date, or none at all to the table. The choice is yours. Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mexico

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

You can't go by how China is treated. We do not wish to lower our standards to that level. The dates there are pure Chinese government propaganda and have absolutely no relationship with reality in any way shape or form. We can edit them, but they'll get reverted in 0.2 seconds, because the CCP literally pays an army of several million internet trolls to do "narrative shaping" for them on the internet, and we can't just IP ban the entire country because they all come through overseas VPNs anyway (Wikipedia, along with pretty much every website you've actually heard of, being blocked in China officially). The absolute earliest Last Subordination date for China that anyone who knows any history would possibly accept is 1368, when the (Han Chinese) Ming threw the Mongols out; and that's dodgy, because you have to have it both ways about whether Manchuria is essentially China or not -- no throws your date into the early twentieth century, and a yes answer leaves you scrambling to explain how the subsequent Japanese occupation doesn't count as subordination (which is arguably valid but is nonetheless a position I would not care to have to defend; like I said, it's dodgy).
Setting China to one side, a number of the Last Subordination dates completely ignore historical reality. India is another example (apparently the British Raj was never a thing). Ethiopia is a special case: they were legitimately never colonized, the only African nation to avoid it, so considering the modern state a continuation of the ancient one is sort of legitimate. (Of course they've had changes of government, but that's its own column.)
As for Mexico, its last subordination date can't be any further back than 1810 at the very earliest, and 1821 or 1836 would be more realistic; no serious historian will dispute that prior to the nineteenth century Mexico was under colonial rule by Spain for some time. Say what you will about the Aztecs being a nation before they were colonized, but they were clearly subordinated by Hernan Cortez and company. If you want to argue about one of the other columns, you'll need to say which column. --User:enwiki~Jonadab, 2020 Oct 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.105.96.42 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Why won't you permit a far less outrageous option for the UK? ðarkuncoll 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Because we are talking about the UK, not the single nations of England, Scotland, and Wales. I think each one could be listed in the middle column with its historical formation, but the United Kingdom must state 1707.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
So the Aztec Empire was a single nation was it, rather than an empire containing lots of different peoples? ðarkuncoll 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See the founding date for the article on Aztec Empire. It reads 13 March 1325. That should be given as its historical formation date with the 1810 date for the modern state of Mexico.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The Aztec Empire certainly had a founding date, and indeed I agree it should be used here. But to not apply a similar principle to Britain is pure double standards, I'm afraid. The Aztec Empire was just as much a collection of different nations as the UK is - or in fact, more so. ðarkuncoll 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the United Kingdom did not exist as a single political unit until 1707, whereas the nations of England, Scotland, and Wales did, and they should be given their historical formations in the middle column of the United Kingdom listing. Why are we arguing over this? We have no argument.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The UK was created by England, so only England should be noted. To do otherwise would be to misrepresent the situation. ðarkuncoll 18:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's nationalistic POV, TharkunColl. If I were a Scot or Welsh I'd be highly offended. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. That's why they have independence movements there, because they know that what I just said is true. ðarkuncoll 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't reply to him, Jeanne. It's called trolling. Jack forbes (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard the rule about Assuming Good Faith? ðarkuncoll 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
How can we assume good faith when you make unhelpful, patronising comments, knowing they are going to offend many people? Sorry, TharkunColl, but I really think your above statement was uncalled for.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The really weird thing about using the union date as the "last subordination" date for the UK, is that nobody was subordinate to anybody immediately prior to that date, and then not subordinate anymore after, and the government(s) involved did not materially change on that date either, and there was no change of dynasty connected with it, nor did the territory or borders move; in short it looks very, very, very different from the "last subordination" date of virtually any other nation on the planet. The last external power that subordinated Britain to any significant extent was the Danelaw (though there was no real concept of a unified nation in Britain at that point, and historians disagree about when that did happen). The Norman "invasion" is best classified as a succession crisis and change of dynasty: William defeated Harold and won the throne, but it is not really reasonable to say that the Normans defeated and subjugated the English people in 1066. The bottom line is that the history of Britain's sovereignty is more complex than the questions this list attempts to answer. --User:Jonadab~enwiki, 2020 October 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.105.96.42 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Though not as well known, there are those who support English independance from the United Kingdom. Anyways, isn't this discussion supposed to be about Mexico? GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Where's Russia?

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

Yes, it should be there. Obviously an oversight.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
is it not a successor state to the USSR and the Russian empire prior to that? It only appears in the sortable list in any case. Outback the koala (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The USSR has 15 successors states. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Most former Soviet republic declared independence from the USSR proper, while the Russian Federation was declared with essentially what was left over. I thought it was commonly considered to be the sole successor state (Soviet embassies for example became Russian, not Latvian). Even the number 15 is up in the air, because of Partially recognized states located in the Caucuses. Outback the koala (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The 14 others, didn't breakaway from Russia. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What?? I don't understand what you're saying. Could you please clarify for me what you mean to say. Outback the koala (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The USSR broke up into 15 countries. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

So in effect, Gobachev resigned as President of a country that no longer existed. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Hardly, he resigned as President of a country that was severely reduced in size (i.e. size of present day Russian Federation), but still had the same name formally. Outback the koala (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I should note that, from the USSR's perspective, they viewed the newly formed countries as still apart of itself up until the dissolution. A good example of this view is here. However from the new republics point of view they were already completely independent. I cant recall what the west's views were on this, although I believe they did support with recognition later (hopefully someone else can confirm this). Outback the koala (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we atleast agree, 1991 was the founding year of the Russian Federation? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Last I looked, Russia was a country in northern Asia. I don't find Russia in this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Russia is under Transcontinental states (Asia and Europe). Goustien (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Date of last subordination" inconsistencies

In the sortable list, there are many countries (e.g. Spain, Poland) that list a "date of last subordination" long before the latest military occupation of their territories as mentioned in the "notes" column. This despite the introductory text to the sortable list explicitly saying that military occupation counts as subordination. Is this an error, or am I missing something? I could probably go fix all of these, but I wouldn't want to do so in contravention of some consensus that I'm not aware of. GeoEvan (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You are good to go. This article is mostly a mass collection of drive-by edits; the only consensus is whatever might be discerned from the article itself, and open to interpretation. You are more than welcome to fix any inconsistencies you find as you see fit. Just try and avoid anything that might be seen as bait for more POV drive-by edits. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I revised Portugal and San Marino. Goustien (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Timor-Leste, 1975 or 2002?

Timor-Leste is listed with a 2002 year of sovereignty in the Asia list and 1975 in the overall list lower down. I don't think the overall list has different criteria than the continental lists, but I may have missed some subtlety. I haven't given much thought to the nuances of sovereignty, but I think 2002 better fits the criteria mentioned in the text. Anyone else have enough confidence to reconcile the two lists?Jbening (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes in the list as a whole

I think we can all agree that for quite some time this list has been in not quite the best state that one could wish, which is why I am bringing forward the idea of doing a complete re-do to this article. These are my proposals which are all, of course, under discussion:

  • Change Date of acquisition of sovereignty and Acquisition of sovereignty to Date of acquisition of statehood and Acquisition of statehood: Sovereignty in this context would imply that the date is when the territory gained legitimacy to govern the territory it controls, which is an entirely different question from what the article wants, the article wants the list to say when did these states were formed, which is not what it is implied in the use of the word sovereignty.
  • Eliminate the territorial modification columns from the list entirely: These columns add nothing to the notion of the formation of the sovereign states. Apart from adding nothing relevant to the article, the columns become unnecessary when you look at the Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900−present) and Timeline of geopolitical changes (before 1900) lists, which although they are not perfect lists, make a better job at conveying territorial modifications than the two columns.
  • Change the date order from M/D/Y to the much more widely used D/M/Y: Nothing to add here but to say that this should have been done a while ago.
  • An overhaul at the Form of government columns: The current columns are very interesting as:
    • They just mention the change in something vague as "Current constitution adopted" or as it is the case with former monarchies something like "Monarchy abolished and replaced by republic", all of this without mentioning even the current form of government or even a hyperlink to the event that abolished the monarchy.
    • Sometimes the text is rather interesting, to say the least. For example, Yemen is listed with the presumption that the union of South and North Yemen somehow means the creation of the current Yemeni form of government, of course, should be in the sovereignty/statehood column. Or take Chile, which is listed under the presumption that the 1989 Chilean constitutional referendum changed the form of government of Chile, when in fact it would still be a presidential republic under a military dictatorship until 11 March 1990 when Patricio Aylwin became president.
  • Add all partially-recognized states Without mentioning China/Taiwan which have to be discussed in detail, all partially-recognized states, even Somaliland with no states recognizing it. I have no idea why a list like this would not include them as even the lead says that "[This list] does include several states with limited recognition".
  • Last but not least, and perhaps most importantly Set the formation date in accordance with the theory on the succession of states: A basis that can finally solve the problem on the subjectivity of this whole list, states should be discussed thoroughly, individually or in groups, as to when would this standard set the difference between the modern and the earlier versions of the state that perhaps are only similar in name and culture but not by law.
I suggest using the 206 (193 + 2 + 11) of the List of sovereign states for which states to include.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't thought much about this, nor do I expect to as I don't have much relevant knowledge. However, I note in driving by that your suggested removal of the territorial modification columns would remove info re the Philippines which is not contained in the two other articles you mention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Of course, all content in those columns that isn't included in the two timelines should be included in it. Also, I agree with the 206 number for the states. Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I liked your suggestions, but I will wait for other editors to give their opinions. Most of the editions I make are in the "Sortable List" part, and most of the time they are editions related to the history of the countries, and I use the dates that Wikipedia itself gives me. BioAmazon3 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
All right people, I've been thinking about this and I think that a single list for this article would be the best way to portray the contents of the article; it would take out considerable amounts of space that is used to convey the same information. The content in the Historical Notes of the sortable list and the Territorial modifications of the main list would be taken out and taken into the List of predecessors of sovereign states articles for the former, and the Timeline of geopolitical changes for the latter. I've made a table on France to show you how this new revision would look like:
Country Continent Date of acquisition of statehood Acquisition of statehood Date of last subordination Previous governing power Date of current form of government Current form of government
 France Europe 843 The Kingdom of the West Franks is established from the division of Francia 25 August 1944  Germany 4 October 1958 The 1958 constitution establishes a semi-presidential system known as the Fifth Republic
As always this is up to discussion, and I would love to see your suggestions on what do you think of this proposal and what do you think should be added or deleted. Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I will be waiting for all your comments on the subject. Cheers and Happy New Year! Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


I agree with the suggestion consolidating and shifting "sovereignty" ..tho not sure "statehood" is the best alternative. (North Dakota achieved it in 1889. Do we want that in this chart?) perhaps "independent nation" would be more precise?

I disagree w/changing date format.

I agree w/eliminating territorial changes .. this field could add a hundred pages of blather, boast and grievance without adding significantly to the main topic..its a distraction.

I agree that there should be a place for partially recognized states But I don't think it should be added to the main table (i think that would add a lot of controversy w/o adding a lot of meaning), instead it should be a new table added below the main table w/identical fields.

I propose the addition of a separate column "claimed foundation date" because in its current format the table's useful information is continually distorted and compromised by people w/a deep need to place such claims and have no outlet... and therefore insert them in place of 'current form of governement' and other inappropriate places ... and frankly they are not going to stop doing that unless either a) the table is locked or b) they are given a clearly marked place to put that stuff. So rather than scoop back the tide lets give them what they want *and clearly label it*. (otherwise it'll still be a battle for authentication of that which in many cases cannot be authenticated). its the least controversial way to put a stop to the vandalism of useful data. ...If you don't like the word "claimed": I suppose we could say something like "roughly estimated" ... anything that makes it clear it is NOT a scientifically corroborated fact. 10+ years on wiki 03:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Could we add some more dates for Montenegro?

See Principality of Montenegro and Kingdom of Montenegro (I am not sure how many dates are worth an inclusion TBH). Ain92 (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

There are many more dates in the "Sortable list" section, FYI. I tried to clean those up a bit. I agree that it would be good to add some of those dates to the "Europe" section too. JECE (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove all continent division and alphabetical order

List of sovereign states by continent?

I don’t think the list in this page represents its title “List of sovereign states *by date of formation*”, because they are not ordered by date of formation at all, they are divided by continent and listed in alphabetical orderer. I think this is misleading (it was for me) and actually incorrect. Since I can’t change the title of the page, I propose the change to someone who can. In alternative, the list could actually be ordered by date of formation, and in that case the title could stay. Jayloke (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a valid point. The title should be changed to more accurately reflect what the list is. I propose "List of sovereign states with formation dates" or "List of sovereign states with dates of government formation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It is a valid point. The solution is not to move it to a nonsensical title to match the nonsensical content.
The solution is to fix the page: This should be a temporal order list of all nations on the planet in order of formation. That's the useful topic and whoever nixed it should feel bad about themselves and have their "work" fixed and "improvements" removed. — LlywelynII 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

article completely unusuable

boy, if only these could be sorted by date 69.113.166.178 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If it was sortable by date that would generate a lot of vandalsim as people came up up with excuses to put in a date that would make their country come at the top of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a nonsensical complaint. If the page attracts vandalism, protect it or remove sortability and fix the order. — LlywelynII 08:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is it separated by continent?

That single fact makes the page almost completely useless - 73.193.118.20 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess it's some weird manual of style thing - but then again, you really bring up a valid point. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
It isn't. It was a mistake by an earlier editor that should be corrected by anyone with the time:
One list for the entire world in order of the formation date provided. Doesn't need to be sortable, but it needs to be what it says on the tin. — LlywelynII 08:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

The majority of dates given on this page are completely wrong. People seem to not understand what a country or sovereign state is CicolasMoon (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate issue from the major problem. If you have specific dates to contest, correct unsourced ones with your own source or come here and explain what was wrong with the sourced date provided. — LlywelynII 08:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
How am I to correct these dates if I don't understand the purpose of this article? CicolasMoon (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
The purpose is set out in lead, below is a list of sovereign states with the dates of their formation (date of their independence or of their constitution) etc. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And what does "date of current form of government" mean? Half these sovereign states listed are not sovereign states. Take the ROC and PRC for example, "date of acquisition of sovereignty" said to be 1600 BC. Like, come on, what is that even supposed to mean. I wouldn't mind sorting this article out btw CicolasMoon (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan as of 2023

I have WP:BOLDLY undone this edit because of lack of cited support and for compatibility with the Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article. If this needs discussion, please discuss it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is to use only the Taliban flag, see Q2 at Talk:Afghanistan/FAQ. The flag shouldn't be changed until the consensus changes after a new RfC. Vpab15 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. I didn't understand the change, and I won't contest against consensus. My POV is that a declaration of sovereignty does not a sovereign state make, but I do understand that the threshold there is often blurry. I have a WP-editor history about that with the First Philippine Republic article and lots of articles related to that.
I did have a thought that this might be improved by adding the information that sovereignty here was acquired by Prescription (sovereignty transfer). I won't make that addition to the article myself, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Afghanistan as of 2023

I have WP:BOLDLY undone this edit because of lack of cited support and for compatibility with the Recognition of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan article. If this needs discussion, please discuss it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The consensus is to use only the Taliban flag, see Q2 at Talk:Afghanistan/FAQ. The flag shouldn't be changed until the consensus changes after a new RfC. Vpab15 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. I didn't understand the change, and I won't contest against consensus. My POV is that a declaration of sovereignty does not a sovereign state make, but I do understand that the threshold there is often blurry. I have a WP-editor history about that with the First Philippine Republic article and lots of articles related to that.
I did have a thought that this might be improved by adding the information that sovereignty here was acquired by Prescription (sovereignty transfer). I won't make that addition to the article myself, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Acquisition of sovereignty

I'm a bit reluctant to raise this because it opens a can of worms in this and other articles, but there is a world of difference between a declaration of independence (an assertion by a polity in a defined territory that it is independent and constitutes a state) and actual acquisition of sovereignty (supreme governmental authority within a state as well as external autonomy). If the definitions I have given those terms are correct, this article and some others have lots of problems

To pick one example, it is my understanding that, in the United States, revolutionaries against British rule acquired sovereignty by action of the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the American Revolutionary War and by which Britain recognized the Thirteen Colonies, which had been part of colonial British America, as an independent, sovereign nation. By this understanding, the United States acquired sovereignty in 1783, not in 1776.

Looking at this from another angle, if the failed revolutions exampled here had succeeded, what would have been the date of acquisition of sovereignty by the newly sovereign governments?

Another article impacted by this issue might be Decolonisation of Asia. That article contains a footnote that begins as follows: "A declaration of independence des not necessarily equate with achievement of independence. However, as of 2023, this date is presented as a date of decolonisation in this article even if the polity declaring independence did not achieve independence. [...]".

Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation/Archive_6&oldid=1212571962"