Talk:Timeline of geopolitical changes (1900–1999)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This list contains information which are not presented elsewhere, however, it also contains information which are collected on the pages List of countries by date of nationhood and List of historical national capitals. Do you think a better organization is possible, to reduce redundance?

I'm also thinking of creating a table with columns: for example, separation of countries (creation of new ones) could be in the first, unification of countries in the second, renaming of countries or capitals in the third and relocation of capitals in the fourth. This way one could more easily find particular kinds of changes in the political geography of the world. What do you think? Adam78 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mauritius

Mauritius became independant of the United Kingdom in 1968, not France. Perhaps you were confusing it with Mauritania? I made the correction. --Paploo (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Timor-Leste

Timor-Leste becomes independent in 2002 from Portugal??? Or was it from Indonesia? Even if one considers purely formal reality, I have many doubts that Timor was formally a Portuguese territory until 2002. It was anexed by Indonesia in 1975 and, I believe, this anexation was recognized by the international community. I think Portugal itself stopped considering Timor as a component of its territory since 1975 or 1976. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.128.150 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Error

The article says: "The Republic of the Fiji Islands becomes independent from the United Kingdom." (1970) That was not Fiji's name in 1970. It became a republic following the military coup of 1987; in the 1970s, it was a Commonwealth realm. I would make the correction, but I'm not sure what its official name was in 1970. I just know that it definitely wasn't "the Republic of the Fiji Islands". 83.114.183.6 (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC) (Aridd, not logged in.)

St. helena

What about St Helena? Wasn't it renaimed very recently??--Coin945 (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Buaidh (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the British overseas territory was previously known as St. Helena and Dependencies but on 1 September 2009, it was changed to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha--Coin945 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging This Page

I think this page should be merged into List of World map changes The spesh man (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit: Saint Martin/Saint Barth/FSM/RMI/Palau

Hello all,

I recently added the French Caribbean islands of St.-Martin and St. Barthelemy left Guadeloupe in 2007, becoming "Overseas Collectivites". Also for the Micronesia (FSM), Marshall Islands (RMI), and Palau I have noted the UN trusteeship was under US Administration. This is to be more precise. As for dependencies, I intend to add a few sometime. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 09:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Colors

This article is currently 106,575 bytes in length. Adding color-coding will lengthen this article even more. If we do add color coding, I think the background colors should be lighter to preserve legibility. Your thoughts? Buaidh (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with lightening the background, I think color coding would be esier to read and to organize for the reader. Maybe the article should be split into BC and CE.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Increase in length of the article is a very small or even insignificant price to pay for the huge increase in readability. The colours are fairly pale - maybe just the green could be toned down... Wdcf (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

China

It would be great to see the more ancient dynasties. The Qin is the oldest one mentioned on this page. Xorthan (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dominion of Canada changed to Canada

Unless one of you fine people can provide me with documents that on November 7th, 1967 was when Canada officially dropped the name Dominion as apart of it's official name, I have removed it from the table. I have looked up extensively on CBC Archives along with other documentation to find such a proclamation by the government ridding the country of this title. The only notable event I found that happed on this day in Canada was when a NWT man was jailed for being gay (seriously...). For that matter actually, whether or not the name "Dominion of Canada" is Canada's legal name is still up for debate by constitutional scholars.

In fact the main debate over this is how the the word dominion of was used. Some argue that the country's name was always Canada as the words "Dominion of Canada" does not appear anywhere in the original Constitution Act. The word "Dominion" only appears four times in the entire document, twice in the preamble, and twice in Article II. Those supporting it still being it's legal name however state that Canadian constitutional law is made up of more documents than just the BNA Act (which is true), many of these were acts from British parliament before the Statute of Westminster (many of which had as much force as the BNA Act). Legal scholars that support the "Dominion" point out that references to "the dominion" in old Canadian laws refer to the Canadian state, and despite it's disuse, no other modern law in Canada changes the fact. While one may continue to argue whether or not the legal name of Canada includes "Dominion" (this is another discussion in it's entirety, and would probably be best to move it to the Name of Canada talk page.

My point is that the name itself is still up for debate by legal and constitutional scholars even today, and that regardless of whether or not you support or oppose the move to drop the title "Dominion", it remains clear that no bill, act or law was created by the Government of Canada or it's Supreme Court stating that the name of Canada is changed from Dominion of Canada to Canada on November 7th, 1967 (or any other day for that matter). 130.113.84.97 (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --Buaidh (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

New Name of Libya

State of Libya is the New interm name of Libya 7/1/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bdulelah (talk • contribs) 19:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gambia

Republic of the Gambia changes its name to the Islamic Republic of the Gambia. Banjul remains the capital. 3bdulelah (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This hasn't been confirmed. I saw a local news article claiming the country's name had been changed, but so far no information about an official name change, which would normally be registered with the UN and show up as an update to ISO 3166-1. GeoEvan (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Capital

Do we really need to say "X remains the capital" in every single entry? --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of historical geopolitical changes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210084913/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201043631/http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15546351-un-upgrades-palestinian-status-bolstering-statehood-claim?lite to http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/29/15546351-un-upgrades-palestinian-status-bolstering-statehood-claim?lite
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029150108/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

I removed the claim that Catalonia had three days of independence: its regional president issued an ambiguous declaration of independence, then immediately suspended it. It was never a reality: the regional government never assumed new powers nor did the national government stop exercising its powers, nor did the Catalan government present to be independent. Puigdemont accepted a court ruling later that week that his declaration was a nullity. If even the government of a putative state does not recognise its independence, it is not independent. Wikipedia is not a propaganda soapbox. Hogweard (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There was no any "historical geopolitical change" in that case. It remained a part of Spain after the declaration and still remain a part of Spain, after all political events. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands and Belgium Swap Land

This will apparently happen on January 1st, so something to watchin the coming days for this page http://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/9919/belgium-netherlands-to-swap-territory-on-january-1 --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've merged the two separate timeline entries for the 2016 treaty and the 2018 effective date. If we make a policy of making separate timeline entries for treaty dates and effective dates, then almost everything is going to end up being on the timeline twice. GeoEvan (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Tiran and Sanafir islands

So today (March 3, 2018) the Supreme Court of Egypt ruled that the handover of Tiran and Sanafir islands by Egypt to Saudi Arabia is lawful, effectively resolving the problem by confirming Saudi sovereignty over the territory. Keep in mind, though, that the actual deal was struck in July 2017, followed by a series of judicial disputes, all of which have been ended by the above-mentioned ruling. https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/44310/Egypt-s-Constitutional-Court-implementation-of-Tiran-Sanafir-deal-valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaremaTV (talk • contribs) 13:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I would favor listing it under the date that the transfer took effect according to the treaty, i.e. probably the date that Egypt's parliament ratified it. I've sometimes seen things added here based on the treaty signature date, but that seems incorrect - some treaties are never ratified and thus never go into effect. GeoEvan (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Ascension Island

In the process of merging things into the tables I wasn't sure where to place Ascension Island in terms of the continent themed background colors. I think it's on the African side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, but it's rather famously touted as "halfway between Africa and South America", so it's a little hard to place. Feel free to correct this if you're one of the 800 Ascension Island residents or someone who knows their geography really, really well. aremisasling (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The entry is in the 16th century, for reference. aremisasling (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Century start years

And since I'm hand-wringing over details, I know traditionally the '00 year is usually included in the preceding century and not the following one. In an effort to just get this cleaned up a bit, I'm not dealing with that. But as a note of a to-do item, it's probably something that should be addressed in the future and should probably get some opinions in terms of how it should be handled for all time periods (decades, centuries, millennia). aremisasling (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

We should probably establish criteria for what "states" are included on this list. My impression was that we were following the inclusion criteria for List of sovereign states, but then I realized that "Islamic State" is on here but not there. I suggest that we explicitly tie this to the inclusion criteria on that other list, and then remove IS if necessary. GeoEvan (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I know this is an old one, but as I understand it IS did essentially declare independence, so I'm not sure why it wasn't in the other list by that list's criteria. Granted it's a bit academic at this point as IS is territorially all but defunct. That said, as prior to the rise of the modern concept of a state most places didn't make what we'd consider a declaration of independence in a modern sense and the UN being a fairly modern construct I don't think that page's criteria are adequate for this page, at least not on their own. They could, however, be a starting point for that conversation. aremisasling (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Pre-state cultural entities and settlements

I started adding Gobekli Tepe and Jericho in the 10th century as they seemed to fit at first, but the more I thought about it's unclear they viewed themselves as a political entity since there was no writing in those places at that time. However, it does seem rather likely that they shared some level of identity. Similarly what of the other cultures pre-4th Century BCE or in places where a clear, organized culture existed, but city states may not have yet arisen? I'm not proposing an answer so much as looking for other opinions. Basically, do places like Jericho or the Vinca culture belong on this list? aremisasling (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Surtsey and other new islands

The recent addition of Adam's Bridge has gotten me thinking about other cases where nature changes geopolitical boundaries, like new islands. These are administered by neighbouring countries, and create new land and territorial water claims. Should we include them in this timeline? Also related are artificial islands which are often used to extend territorial waters, and have even been the subjects of territorial disputes. Should we include them? I think yes for both, but I want to see what other editors think. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge seems to be relevant to geopolitics, as it allowed for the transportation and migration between Sri Lanka and mainland India and was in respect a border. If the new islands represent a change in geopolitics, they could be included, provided they have to do with "significant changes in territory such as the annexation, cession, or secession of land."

East Island, Hawaii, on the other hand, is merely a geographic change and does not affect the geopolitics of any country. Its disappearance is not significant in any way to international relations or domestic politics. It is unlike the rest of this article and should not be listed, not to mention it didn't even disappear entirely, rather most of of the sand washed away, leaving a smaller island of sand behind. There are a number of Lost lands#Submerged lands that likewise do not relate to geopolitics. Reywas92^Talk 06:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Why BOLD?

Can anyone tell me why the heck some entity names are bolded, and other not? I have come up with various theories, and they have all failed. On one hand, I can see no reason for them; on the other, they make (some!) country names easier to see in this thick, long list. Thoughts? Peacedance (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me the rule is that: as default, the country name is bolded; if the change is just a minor adjustment between two countries it is not bolded; if it's a major constitutional or fundamental alteration between two states, again it's bolded. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Georgia capital

The timeline mentions Georgia moving its legislative capital from Tbilisi to Kutaisi on May 26, 2012, but does not mention the capital being moved back. The article on Kutaisi says that it was the legislative capital from October 2012 to December 2018, but doesn't mention precise dates... --Yair rand (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Reverse chronological order

Hello everyone is it possible to reverse the order of the timeline in the article quickly and efficiently? it's confusing87.0.191.186 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Colours

These are simply unnecessary and take up 50,000 bytes of an already very large article. The continents are often inefficient as distinctions, where regions like the Middle East, Latin America, Asia Minor and the Caucuses are split away. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sub-national Territorial Changes

An editor recently added the anticipated split of Kashmir. It was then hidden, citing WP:CRYSTAL. This means it looks like the current plan is to show it when (if) it happens. However, this page doesn't include most changes in borders of territories within soverign states. For example, in 1954, the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. This is not reflected on this page. Nor is the transformation of US territories into states. In general it doesn't look like we've been including sub-national territories, except for "The French Republic accepts Mayotte in the Comoro Islands as the Department of Mayotte" in 2011 (it was a French Overseas Territory before that) and a few other cases like that. I feel like we should be consistent about this. Are we going to include all territorial changes at the sub-national level, or none? Or is there some consistent filter we can set that Kashmir and Mayotte meet and the Soviet Republics trading Crimea and US states don't? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree. I think it makes more sense to draw a line based on autonomy/sovereignty. Some sub-national divisions have a significant level of autonomy and behave in many ways like independent nations, like Hong Kong for instance. Those I think it would make sense to include changes to, including changing status to/from that autonomous state. That would mean changes to Mayotte's status would get bumped from the list because it has no more power than subdivisions of Metropolitan France, but the reclassification of the Netherlands' territories as separate countries under the Dutch crown and changes to places like Puerto Rico would remain on the list. There's still a little fuzziness, but I think that makes more sense than going the opposite direction of allowing all sub-national changes. And I'd agree there doesn't seem to be a firm logic for inclusion/exclusion on the list. I've always seen the various re-classifications of overseas territories as not particularly relevant changes to this page, anyway, for whatever my opinion is worth. aremisasling (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree I am removing the change, the description only allows for changes in international borders I believe. If we were to include every interregional border change the list would be way longer. It would include every countries border changes like Timeline of historical geopolitical changes. --Bluecrab2 (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Timeline of historical geopolitical changes - Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article should be split into Timeline of historical geopolitical changes (21st century); Timeline of historical geopolitical changes (20th century); Timeline of historical geopolitical changes (19th century); Timeline of historical geopolitical changes (18th century); and Timeline of historical geopolitical changes (pre-18th century) (btw the final one is not a finalized title). FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Having every change to the world map be one article results in a massive article which is hard to read; it shows. Having smaller, bite-size articles, on the other hand, would fix this issue. GeographyAholic talk 01:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but reconsider later. The list would be harder to maintain, and while I agree that earlier centuries aren't as well-documented as later centuries, once more information is added, we'll need to split the new articles again and again, maybe getting a new page for each century. When will it end? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. I do agree that the article is long. However, this article is a list of all of the documented geopolitical changes If we split this article up into these sections, it will be harder to find the information, as it won't all be in one place. The current list format works well for this article and splitting it up would make it much worse. 96.252.62.48 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You agree that the article is too long, but want to leave it that way? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support a continental split. Most people are looking for changes over one region throughout the times, rather than changes in one time over various places. It could also provide an incentive to add non-European changes. I suggest: Europe, Arab world or "Middle East and North Africa", Eastern Asia (Far East), South-East Asia, Americas, Africa, Oceania and the Pacific Islands. Kahlores (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What about changes that affect multiple regions, for example Sudan and South Sudan? Sudan is part of MENA, while South Sudan is part of Sub-Saharan Africa. --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Write on both articles, from each regional viewpoint. There would be few cases. Kahlores (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Have we reached a consensus? STAPVARS (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't like the idea of splitting the article (I like the idea of having it all in one page,) however, if it were to be split, it should be split by era, not by geography. —SPESH531Other 23:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support The article is currently has a massive 427,780 of wiki-markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: the fact that nobody can even make their minds up how the page would theoretically be split should be clear evidence that splitting it would end up pleasing even fewer people than just keeping it whole. Falastur2 ^Talk 21:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I suggest you read the comments again. Several people have made up their mind how the article could be split., including the OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • First of all I want to say that I find your "I suggest you read the comments again" comment fairly rude. Secondly, I think you may have misunderstood my point. My point is that everyone who is suggesting how to split the article is torn on whether to do it by time period or by geographical location. What's more, I'm fairly certain that if a decision were made, people would then disagree on how to subdivide - especially if done on geography. My argument was not that nobody had any ideas, it was that a consensus will never be reached. Falastur2 ^Talk 18:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agreed with both 96.252.62.48 and Falastur2. Rosbife (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I like how it is all concentrated in one area. If you are looking up facts from a longer timescale, it would be a hassle to have to go to multiple articles. -(ItsDaBunnyYT 05:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, no point to this. Jerry (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is now 445,487 bytes which is too big by far - it is currently this Wikipedia's largest. Several of the "oppose" comments above fail the WP:ILIKEIT test. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - this article has become absurdly long. I would lean towards a chronological split as opposed to a geographical one, but either is better than nothing. It seems to me it would become much easier to maintain and navigate if it were split; imagine someone trying to view this monstrosity on a smaller device, for example. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support split but let's start with the 20th century and 21st century. Should probably be named (1900-1999) and (2000-present). Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent Addition of the 2020 Section

I don’t think either entry in the 2020 section of this page could be considered geopolitical changes. Nepal claiming land that it does not control does not constitute a geopolitical change. The other is a bit trickier but I don’t think claiming six blocks as a decentralized zone is the same as declaring independence. The reason I say it’s trickier is because groups that de facto control land are represented on this page, but to me having this entry would be like updating this article every time land changes hands in an ongoing civil war. Thoughts? Bayou Tapestry (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Claims from establish countries without teeth are still claims and should be included (like how we would include if China ever stopped claiming Taiwan, for example). Otherwise this article risks having to get into day-to-day military movements. As for CHAZ, I don't think that qualifies at all. Call me crazy but I think we should have a higher barrier for entry than a handmade sign reading "You are now leaving the US". If they are so decentralized that we couldn't possibly get an actual declaration of independence from them, then surely they're so decentralized that one sign doesn't speak for the whole community. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There are a whole series of treaties at the very top of the global geopolitical order around the current status of Taiwan and the 'One China' policy. This is not really an example that is "without teeth" or can help to clarify when we categorize territorial disputes as geopolitical changes. Sladnick (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I agree with Golbez (talk · contribs) on the Nepal point. There are lots of examples throughout the timeline on this article of claims "without teeth" as he puts it, for example the Donetsk People's Republic holds only part of what it asserts to be its territory, the United Federated States of Bangsamoro Republik seems to have been a toothless claim, etc. They're all still notable enough for me though, and this page doesn't really give enough guidance on deciding these issues. As for the CHAZ, I'm not sure it's quite significant enough. A similar example Freetown Christiania was much longer lasting and didn't get included here. Same with Free Derry which I'd argue was truly an area where enforcement of the state's power did in many ways cease. Orania, Northern Cape seems very autonomous but isn't included. Llemiles (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic has more tanks than almost any country in Europe. Bangamoro Republik is debatable, but according to the article it led an uprising that took control of part of a major city. But if we get down to the level of CHAZ, Freetown or even Free Derry then we would quickly discover that virtually all states before the late 20th century were actually a patchwork of innumerable autonomous entites where the centralized state institutions had limited means of enforcement. Sladnick (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This Nepal claim does not date from 2020 regardless, so it has absolutely no business being there - it's an old claim merely being hyped up in the press right now. Sladnick (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Maritime Territories

There was no established criteria for the inclusion of maritime territories on this list, so I unilaterally put one in the intro — if you disagree please debate it here. I figured that only disputed cases should be listed because a) non-disputed maritime claims are already listed elsewhere and we don't really need to duplicate that on this list which is already over-loaded; b) non-disputed maritime agreements/claims don't result in any practical geopolitical change (even theoretically the legal rationale is that they are merely delineating that which already belonged to them). The only entry I deleted from the list was the USA-Niue maritime border treaty. Sladnick (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this rule, delineating isn't exactly a geopolitical change but I also believe a change in maritime borders should count as well. If the borders shift for some reason that would be as noteworthy as a dispute resolved. --Pithon314 (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Time Zone Changes

In 2011 the article has "Samoa and Tokelau switch to the western side of the International Date Line, skipping 30 December entirely." and in 1995 "The International Date Line is moved around Kiribati." These are the only time zone changes I could find. Time zones are not usually depicted on a normal geopolitical map. However, sometimes the International Date Line is. Time zone changes are also mentioned nowhere on the intro of the pages with what changes qualify. I believe there are 3 options:

1. The article includes all the time zone changes on the page.

2. The article includes only time zone changes which move the International Date Line.

3. The article includes no time zone changes

For option 1, this would add lots of more changes to an already lengthy page. I believe that a new separate page for Timeline of timezone changes could be useful.

For option 2, the international date line changes are already mostly covered on the IDL page (International_Date_Line#Historic_alterations) and right now we are missing several changes the IDL which would have to be added if this option is chosen.

For option 3, we'd remove both the IDL changes on the article currently but maybe consider making a new page covering the history of timezone changes. --Pithon314 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this and clearly laying out the options. After thinking about it more I think option #2 of only including IDL changes makes sense. I also like the idea for a separate Timeline of Timezone Changes page. Sladnick (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Old opening

This timeline should inform readers what differences they can expect between political maps of two certain dates in history. It should also enable readers to tell how much information is outdated in a map from a certain year, or to date a certain map (or country factsheet) by the differences it has from today's maps. Besides, it should enable readers who learned a different political landscape of the world to update their knowledge.

The list can include renaming, creation, separation and unification of countries, extension or loss of their territories as well as renaming or relocation of their capitals.

Notes:

• Changes in political organization or government are not recorded in this list.
• Years refer to dates when a country border change was internationally recognized. Independence is counted when it is recognized, rather than declared.
• The timeline is reverse-ordered so that differences from the present time can be identified easier.
• Description of changes should be as concise as possible, mentioning the old and the new name.
• The country where a change takes place (or which receives a specific territory) is marked bold. (If its name is modified, the new name is marked bold.)

• I don't know who wrote this. This type of discussion of the educational goals we want the article to achieve are appropriate for the talk page, but not for the introduction of an article. Sladnick (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Page size

This page now has 522,408 bytes of markup; it should be subdivided, into several sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A consensus was already reached in May 2020 to split the timeline (see archive of talk page), awaiting the reaching of another consensus on how to split it. I propose to make a simple chronological split before and after 1900. It is convenient (or would be if the timeline wasn't overly long) to see the progression of changes on one page — keeping everything going back to 1900 would at least keep all more-or-less modern developments grouped together, while cutting the timeline approximately in half. Strongly oppose any division of the timeline according to geography. Sladnick (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sladnick, if divided it should be chronologically not geographically. The chronology will help retain all the geopolitical changes that occured in a year at a specific location. If geography is important we could readd the colours removed in 2019 that were deemed "unnecesary". They posted a section on the talk page and no one responded which is why they ended up removing the colours but we could discuss the readdition. --Pithon314 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sladnick for a chronological split for 1900 to present. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Technicality of Using Xth Century

When we use the term 20th Century it actually goes from January 1, 1901 to December 31, 2000. (This fact dates back to the fact that there is no year 0, AD started at 1) So to correct this we should either change it to the 2000s, 1900s, 1800s... or move the year 2000, 1900, 1800... to the previous century then they are in right now. I'm in favor of the prior, however, it may be confusing to include both 2000s as a millennium and as a decade. --Pithon314 (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I say switch to 1800s, 1700s, etc down to the beginning of the common era. But this can wait for the article to be split — and if it's split at 1900 we won't need to denote the centuries for the 1900—present article. Sladnick (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will fix it after the article is split --Pithon314 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Khmeimim Air Base

I'm not sure that the Khmeimim Air Base should be included. From what I can tell, this is just another case of extraterritoriality and if this was included we should include many other military bases, embassy creations, etc. Is there something different about this military base that I am not seeing? --Pithon314 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It was leased to Russia until at least 2066. I think such leased territories/foreign concessions that are the subject of special treaties should be distinguished from normal military bases and the like, which could in theory be terminated at any time. Many such cases are already included on the timeline, though others from the 19th and early 20th century are still missing — even Hong Kong falls within this group, though it is the most extreme example. There is a public conception, both historically and in the present, that countries cede control over their territory through such concessions in ways that goes beyond normal, more limited and conditional agreements of extraterritorial rights; China again and the Ottoman Empire were the infamous examples of this historically, and across the Middle East today much of the public views the Syrian Government's concessions to Russia at Khmeimim (and Tartus) as a return to that practice. Sladnick (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Such examples definitely do not transfer the sovereignty from the host country to the foreign country. At least under the current intro, I don't believe they could count. Right now the listed territory changes we have are: "such as the annexation, cession, or secession of land." The land is definitely not being changed here, just control. Maybe we should amend it to include the examples in the special cases section of the extraterritoriality page. I would be okay with this change because I agree that they at least involve a transfer of control over a piece of land. --Pithon314 (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of changing the second sentence of the intro to: "It includes dates of declarations of independence, changes in country name, changes of capital city or name, and changes in territory such as the annexation, cession, or secession of land, as well as international leases and concessions."? I'm the deleting the entry on China's lease of Gwadar, because it doesn't reach the level of a direct state-to-state transfer of (temporary) sovereignty, even though many are afraid it could become that de facto. Sladnick (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm changing my proposal for the second sentence to: "It includes dates of declarations of independence, changes in country name, changes of capital city or name, and changes in territory such as the annexation, cession, concession, occupation, or secession of land." Sladnick (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Leases aren't changes to sovereignty. A military base, even with a lease, is nothing like British Hong Kong. I've been intending on removing any military bases from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Sladnick, how do you disagree with removing military bases from this article? Surely you can't think this article can list every military base in history. More to the point though, they aren't any different as sovereign territory. This seems like it's just to include Russian bases in Syria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, this isn't a timeline of changes of sovereignty, but of geopolitical changes. In that regard an argument could even be made for the inclusion of all military bases. Yet I am only arguing for the inclusion of the small percent of military bases (and bases for other uses like Baikonur) in which there is a treaty to transfer sovereign rights (as distinct from the principal of sovereignty) over the land on which these are based. I was not the first to add such sovereign lease territories to this timeline, and the cases are not limited to Russia's two recent agreements with Syria: you removed Thule for example, which is a perpetual lease, and Guantanamo Bay is another with the same status. Since not many people are active here, and it will be hard to form a real consensus, I will try to seek out some actual literature on the topic rather than just digging in my heals based on opinion. Sladnick (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware these include perpetual leases. As a matter of law, these military installations remain on the sovereign territory of the hosting country, and the arrangement is subject to the laws of that country. Thule remains entirely within the sovereignty of Denmark and Guantanamo Bay remains entirely within the sovereignty of Cuba. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the theory, that the lessee remains entirely sovereign, but of course the reality has been different since this means of acquiring control over territory was first devised. It seems to me treaties transferring sovereign rights over land were an important part of the global geopolitical order before the Second World War, remained an important part of the US's hemispheric order, and has reemerged as an increasingly significant part of the global order since the end of the Cold War. But as I said, I will try to inform myself more on the matter ASAP. Sladnick (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's highly Wikipedia:Original research. They aren't transferring any rights of sovereignty, so they don't belong in this article. Russia does not have sovereign territory or territory with sovereign rights in Syria. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the opposite of Wikipedia:Original research. I'm specifically saying I will try to find how leased territories are treated or not treated as geopolitical entities by reliable, published sources such as in the fields of academia and jurisprudence dealing with international law, the UN, encyclopedias, etc. And again, this isn't an article on changes of sovereignty. Do you propose to make it one? In that case a lot more needs to be taken out. Sladnick (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I was considering the first two sentences to be original research, but I acknowledge what you have said about doing further research. The only justification for including military bases was changes to sovereignty and sovereignty rights, but those aren't relevant to military bases. Unless there is some other way that military bases are similar to the other items in the list, they can't be considered relevant here. Leased territories could certainly belong in this article, but that does not include military bases. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Confusion understood, and I appreciate your clarifying. But on that point the same distinction I drew between practical jurisdiction and technical sovereignty was made by L. F. L. Oppenheim, often regarded as the father of the discipline of international law, in whose most influential text, "International Law: A Treatise", the distinction is clearly drawn that while the territory legally remained the property of the leasing state, the lessee state might treat the leased territory as its own territory and a lease might resemble cession. I will wait at least until tomorrow before adding more, to have time to more carefully gather sources (trying not to unduly prejudice my starting position). Again, my intention in doing this is to help identify some objective foothold for this debate, so that it is not just a clash of opinions among a handful of people about what should count as geopolitical changes. Sladnick (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be untenable to decide if a certain military base should be included in the list based on how the tenant regards the lease. These leases can be overturned by the lessor according to its domestic law, unlike territorial cessations which can constitute leases like British Hong Kong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That is simply not true in the cases we (or at least I) am discussing, which is the specific reason why I presumed the list included leased territories to the exclusion of military bases in general — a criteria which has nothing at all to do with their use as a base, but is entirely about the status of the underlying territory. Oppenheim, for example, insisted that until a lease expires ”it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory concerned,” and that it would be a violation of international law for the lessor state to unilaterally abrogate the lease. I encourage you to take the time, as I am trying to do, to take a step back and place your case on as solid of foundations as you can. Sladnick (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not the case for military bases though, or the land of these military bases, which is what I'm discussing. They are not in any way overseas territories of the lessee. I am interested to see the material you are reading, but it's clear they don't belong in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Please provide some reference for your claim that military bases cannot function as a lease in which "it is the lease-holder who exercises sovereignty over the territory concerned". I am not disputing that most military bases in the world do not meet that criteria. For example the US's major base in Bahrain is leased through a simple agreement between the two governments, not through a treaty which would hold any weight in international law.[1] But the type of lease agreement involved in Russia's base at Tartus, for example (please study the full text for yourself [2]) has a completely different legal basis: it is an international treaty ratified by the parliaments of both countries, binding on both even in the event of a change in their government structure (Article 4), in force for a period of no less than 49 years years even at the end of which Syria can reclaim the lease only if it has filed through the proper diplomatic channels for termination at least one year before the expiration date, otherwise the lease is automatically extended (Article 25). This is not a case unique to a few of Russia's bases: Denmark cannot abrogate the treaty underlying the lease at Thule Base [3] or Cuba cannot unilaterally reclaim Guantanamo Bay [4] without violating international law. Sladnick (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not a function of any kind of military base, but it's always possible that a military base can be on territory that has sovereignty transferred. Thank you for providing me with the text of the agreement, but can you direct me to which part of this makes a claim that sovereignty has been transferred from Syria to Russia? American sovereignty is simply not claimed to have been transferred from Cuba or Denmark. Instead of what is undoubtedly considered original research, and I do respect the research element of this, we need something that says sovereignty was transferred from X to Y. We can't just read into it based on agreements and academic understandings of the implications of those agreements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It spells out a process Syria has to go through to ever get this territory back. I cited an authoritative interpretation from the discipline of international law that such treaties should be recognized as a transfer of the exercise/jurisdiction of sovereignty. This is not original research. I could cite a dozen other authorities on international law that give the same interpretation, but in this entire exchange you have yet to provide any evidence to support your claims, and instead just keep repeating your opinion (which you are entitled to) and making technical accusations that don't stick (which I don't appreciate). Sladnick (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources on international law which describe this particular agreement as a transfer of sovereignty, not simply reliable sources which describe these kinds of agreements as a transfer of sovereignty. To the extent that you are doing the latter, that is a WP:SYNTHESIS which is a form of original research, which I say in no way as a personal reflection on you, it just describes what that would be. I don't think I can be expected to find sources which say that something which is not a transfer of sovereignty is not a transfer of sovereignty. You're making an argument applying reliably sourced legal principles to a particular case, but as a talk page participant I cannot make an assessment on whether that is a correct application, nor can anybody else who participates here. I mean absolutely no discord here, it's just a matter of having the sources say explicitly what you propose this article says. If indeed a reliable source does explicitly say this, then I would have absolutely no issue including it in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle says Russia was transferred sovereignty over the territory the base is on. [5] On the other stuff sorry if I took it personally, but the main point in all that I said above is sovereignty is not an established criteria for inclusion of entries on this timeline — half the entries already don't meet that. Sladnick (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I would not object to removing the most recent entry on the expansion of Khmeimim, since the reporting on it is too vague to tell if this was done through an amendment to the existing concession treaty or is just an adjacent lease that may have completely different terms. Sladnick (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To your point that sovereignty is not the only criteria for this article, that is true, but it's the only criteria that could apply to military bases, unless you have another criteria that this would be relevant. I wouldn't have thought there was another, since you have been putting forth the case that these are matters of sovereignty. The Deutsche Welle source is interesting and may be sufficient, but would this be enough to consider the area as Russian territory on other articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been replying to the point on sovereignty in general (you originally said leases can't be considered a change to sovereignty), and in particular on whether leases can be considered to transfer sovereignty even if they're just used as military bases (you also said if they're nothing like Hong Kong they don't count) because you insisted that sovereignty was the only acceptable criteria — and since this talk page is not active at the moment and I didn't think it would be productive to just keep arguing on the level of conflicting opinions. Sladnick (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not reflecting on your conduct at all in this discussion. I just assumed your only proposed justification for including military bases here was that there was a change in sovereignty. I probably could have been clearer earlier in saying that the military base lease itself isn't a transfer of sovereignty or relevant to this article, but a lease of territory in which sovereignty is transferred is likely relevant, which may happen to include a military base. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)