Talk:Modern empires' loss of European territory

Please rename this page

The name "Modern empires loss of european territory" is very confusing. Even if the appropriate apostrophe and capitalized E were added, the name would still look pretty meaningless. Ratemonth (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the grammar problems in the page's name. The name is still bad though. Ratemonth (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Problems with page

Given the lack of consensus on deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonization in Europe) we can at least point out some of the existing problems.

1) First, the page is not what it claims to be. It is a list of every European state with their most recent date of foundation/independence. In including some of these early entities, it introduces significant OR and POV issues: San Moreno, as a political entity, dating from the fall of Rome; Great Britain dating from Athelstan; etc. Given that these represent nearly half the list, these cannot be simply waved away as just context. They don't belong in the page, as it describes its own purpose. If the list is to be something else, then it should be.

2) Second, it leaves out events that would seem to match its criteria. The Freedom of Lithuania after WWI; the freedom of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania from the Soviet Empire (as described on the Soviet Empire page). The introduction explicitly includes the Soviet Empire, not just the Soviet Union. That being said, the so-called 'Soviet Empire' is an entity defined by political science, not an established political entity like the other Empires mentioned, or the Soviet Union - it seems like the Soviet Union is what was used for selection, but the term 'Soviet Empire' was used simply because it has the word Empire in it, which sound more like a colonial power than a Union does. Because this page, rather than listing events of (by its own criteria) decolonization instead insists on listing every country in Europe and each only once, it excludes cases where there are more than one such (by its own criteria) decolonizations have occurred over time, and leads to completely arbitrary choices.

3) Third, the exclusion of similar liberation events that are for all intents and purposes identical, but are left out of the list because the entity from which they were separating was not called an Empire, i.e. the former Yugoslav states except for Serbia. They clearly separated out of similar motivations to what drove Georgian, Ukrainian, or Estonian separation. Some of the distinctions are completely arbitrary categorizations within the list, like treating Latvia differently than Lithuania and Estonia, as if Latvia wasn't just as much a part of the Soviet Union. Likewise, with those earlier events listed although not matching the page's criteria, there is nothing to distinguish Switzerland and the Netherlands on one side from Spain on the other as subject states to the French Empire. Portugal from a personal union with the Spanish monarchy is included, Great Britain (sic) from a personal union with the Danish monarch is not.

4) The use of decolonization to describe independence of integrated members of contiguous territorial states. I know this is done on other Decolonization sites, but it is based on a POV political science determination of moral equivalence. This creates a duality whereby entities that were never colonies are listed as being decolonized. If these events are to be listed, then they merit a separate listing that explains the distinction and is NPOV on the appropriateness of the categorization, not just a different color in a list that mixes true colonies, such POV-pseudo-colonies, and non-colonies.

Fundamentally, the page lacks self-awareness - it has no clear idea what it's supposed to be - is it a list of every European country, or is it a list of decolonization, or is it just a tag-along because such a page exists for the other continents? Questions of what should count and what shouldn't result in OR conclusions that are POV or just plain arbitrary. I can't even try to fix it because there is no clear pattern to be conformed to. I still think deletion is the only solution, but I am certainly open to reevaluation if the necessary fixes are made. Unless something is done to fix this page, there is likely to be another deletion vote at some point down the road. Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Page moved and edited - to correct the general issue of Europe vs. decolonization. I hope that some of the problems listed below are also resolved.

About 1 - let's discuss these of the gray entries that someone finds to have inaccurate dates.

About 2 - as you said "Soviet Empire" is not a political entity, but a concept. Corrected.

About 2 - in cases of independence occuring over time (Egypt/Australia/Canada/etc.) multiple dates are used (eg. 1901/1942/1986).

About 3 - Latvia is not treated differently than Estonia/Lithuania - it was just below in the list (not right behind the first two).

About 3 - Not only Serbia, all Yugoslav states are in the list: Serbia, Montenegro - 1878; Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia - 1918. Only Macedonia is listed in 1991 as it didn't exist as a separate entity in the Ottoman/Austrian separation period.

About 3 - french empire/personal unions - same as 1 - let's discuss the particular cases, maybe some dates should be moved (eg. treating "satellite states" as independent - Switzerland, Spain; in contrast to Netherlands that were French empire departments before independence). Switzerland corrected.

About 4 - decolonization terminology removed. Anyway IMHO, this debate about the contigous empires should be held on the Decolonization page instead. Alinor (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1,3)Again, why should we put a whole lot of effort into making arbitrary, POV, OR determinations about the gray entries, when they don't belong in the list anyhow. They are colored the way they are because they are not instances of anything happening to a modern empire. Is this a list about of modern empires or isn't it? If it is, then just remove them, as the timing of when, for example, San M became an autonomous entity is completely irrelevant to the topic. If these states that reflect older events are to be included, then it is not a list of the loss of European territory by modern empires and the whole title and introduction need to change to reflect what the list really is.

3)I am not sure simply rephrasing the description really fits the bill. It is still a relevant question whether the freedom of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc., from the Soviet Empire is different in kind from that of Lithuania, simply because Lithuania was joined with the controlling state under a different set of organizing fictions. Part of what allowed the states of the Soviet Union to separate themselves so easily was that the Soviets fell victim to their own political fiction that these Soviet Socialist Republics represented independent states (a fiction even recognized by the UN, which already seated each of them). I know they weren't, you know they weren't, and they certainly knew they weren't independent, but given what happened in Hungary in 1956, and Czeckoslovakia in 1969, etc., were those states any more independent, or was this just more political fiction? In the extreme, one of the critical events in the process of breakup was when Yeltsin and Co. expressed Russian state government independence from control by the central government of the Soviet Union. Should we then include Russia in the list of decolonized states? (This is another flavor of the same concern expressed in the previous comment. Decisions like this, when not based on scholarly consensus or without representing the disagreement within the scholarly community, represent nothing but the personal POVs of the compilers - these are decisions for scholars and experts, not for Wikipedia editors.)

3)I missed the double reference to the other two Baltic States - it's good.

3)When I said "except Serbia," I was talking about something completely different than you are when you say "not just Serbia". A large part of the history of Yugoslavia is represented by the struggle of the other nationalities to escape Serbian domination of the state, and it was to escape this Serb domination that the other states separated from Yugoslavia. The fact that 70 years before, some of them had a brief independent existence does not make the actions that they took any different than the action that Macedonia took. If Macedonia leaving Yugoslavia is decolonization, then so is Slovenia leaving it, and so is Croatia leaving it, . . . These should be listed twice, like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

4) I would still prefer splitting the list. Have a (very short) list of true decolonizations, and a separate longer list of these other events, prefaced with an discussion of the controversy over whether they represent decolonization or not. If colors are to be used, either in a single list or separate lists, please tone down them down. The fluorescent green and yellow are headache-inducing (try pastels). Agricolae (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The gray entries are put only for "context" reasons - because they intermingle with the rest (eg. there are gray entries occurring after some yellow entries) and by having all three types of entries we avoid having gaps in the timeline. We could separate them or remove them, but this will not be an improvement. To denote their "context" appearance there are the following measures already implemented: merged columns + different color + explanatory note before the list. Maybe additionally we should utilize a smaller font size.

As you said the Soviet "empire" is a political science construct, not a real entity/state. The lead section refers to the "state" Russian Empire/USSR.

Soviet republics were not "recognized by the UN, which already seated each of them" - of the 15 republics only Ukraine and Belarus were members. Russia and the rest were not members. USSR itself was a member. Ukraine and Belarus membership is an odd point as they were not independent, yes, but so were India and the Philippines.

No double listings - many of the countries have multiple events, but only the last event is listed. See notes on the Baltics.

Macedonia is listed in 1990, not because it separated from Yugoslavia then, but because it didn't separate on its own from the Ottoman. As described in its note - Serbia had captured the present-day Macedonia territory (and some other) from the Ottoman in 1912. See note3.

About the colors - I tried in the past with darker colors, but then the letters are hard to read. I don't object any change in the color scheme - if you think some color combination is better. Alinor (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you so want to discuss..The Baltics definitely were independent after the Russian Empire fell, and the current states are the same states (not some successor states) of the 1918-declared states. So, even if you want only one of the dates included, the 1918 ones should be used. The majority of Western countries never formally recognised their inclusion to the Soviet Union, neither did Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania themselves. Undid your edit.H2ppyme (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a state is the "same" or a "successor" doesn't matter in this case - let me explain - if we assume that a "Kingdom of Utopia" gets independence from the "Empire of Aipodia" in 2122 and 100 years later the monarchy is overthrown in a civil war with republicans that declare a "People's Republic of Utopia" (2222), only to be overthrown by a coup d'état by the military 2 years later that declare a "State of Utopia" (2224) - we would still have a entry for Utopia with a year 2122 - the year of separation of the Kingdom of Utopia. The subsequent successions by Republic/State are irrelevant in this case.

Whether the majority of western countries recognized or not Soviet annexation is debatable. The position of the majority of all countries is also interesting, but both don't matter - the Soviet Union had total control, not only military, but also civilian and administrative for ~50 years, regardless if de jure recognized by some states or not. Baltics continuation of their former states has implications for applicable laws, enforcing of acts adopted during soviet time, it has symbolic value, etc. - but the fact that the independent Baltic governments were in exile during these 50 years is not disputed by anyone. So, the last event of separation/assuming control, is in 1990s. I added a note about that in the 1990 Baltic entries - please rephrase it if you think it is not clear enough. Alinor (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The note is fine, as long as the older entries are left on the list. If we'd move the older entries, we'd also have to replace Poland's 1918 entry with 1945 one, since that is the last year it recieved independence from a modern empire...The only difference is that instead of 51 years, Polish independence was interrupted for 5 years. So all we have is a time difference - what is too long for this article, can only subjectively be decided.H2ppyme (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Poland is different - its non-independence was only during the war - just like many other countries. That is the difference - Poland entered the war independent and remained independent after the war. Baltics entered the war independent, but after the WWII they were no longer independent. Alinor (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, and we still haven't resolved the two biggest problems. 1) What IS this page intended to represent? This is evident by all of those irrelevant countries. You talk of the effect on the timeline, but this page is not a timeline of national independence, it is a list of the loss of territory by colonial empires. There will be no gaps in the timeline, as the events to be excluded would not be instances of what the timeline claims to be presenting. You still don't know what you want this page to be, naming it one thing but then insisting on the inclusion of so many events irrelevant to that name. Given the current name of the page (which is awkward in the extreme) you would be better off separating the list by Empire - these are the nations resulting from the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, these are the ones from the Ottoman, these are the ones from the Russian, etc. 2) POV: you are making all of the decisions based on your own POV. This is leading to opposite arbitrary decisions within and between the Baltics and the Balkans, between Poland (WWII) and the Netherlands (Napoleonic Wars). It is a further arbitrary decision on your part that any given piece of land can only achieve independence once, in spite of subsequent subjugation. (While I can't speak to 1918, I lived through the end of Yugoslavia, and there was nothing substantive that made the freedom of Macedonia any different than that of Croatia or Slovenia, other than that they didn't have to go to war over it. They had the same motivations and the same results, and to draw a distinction based on what happened in 1918 only serves to obscure the actual events, not clarify them.) The solution is not to debate each country. Your use of your own personal viewpoint dooms the page to being subject to the whim of each editor. This is why the OR and POV issues cannot simply be put aside or dealt with on some other page. They underlie all of the discussion taking place here over individual countries. Agricolae (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The gray entries are put it to show the historical context, eg. as counterweight to the yellow and green entries - to see that there were different processes happening simultaneously. This is not a list of national independence (see the notes - there such list is linked). We can discuss if it is benefitial to remove the gray entries altogheter, but I think they are already clearly differentiated from the rest. see new note in article head

And here we come to the Yugoslavia point - there are few factors: this is not a list of national independence; all territories of SFRY were formerlly part of a modern empire (Ottoman and Austria-Hungary); Yugoslavia was not an empire. I think the list currently describes all that. The special case of Macedonia (territory taken over from Ottoman by Serbia - no Macedonian state in 1910s) is described in its note. For the rest of the former yugoslav republics the processes of subsequent mergers and secessions (from initial kingdoms, etc. trough Yugoslavia dissolution) is also described in their notes. If something is missing, let's change the notes. Alinor (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a list is to detail a class of items that share some common characteristic, not to list all items whether they fall within the class or outside it. You keep saying this is not a list of independence but freedom from modern empire, and yet keep insisting that events having nothing to do with freedom from modern empire be listed 'just for context'. You list them if they came from a modern empire, you list them if they didn't come from a modern empire.

That is, unless the non-empire giving rise to the country was Yugoslavia, in which case you maintain that those freedom events do not merit listing. Unless the event involved Macedonia, in which case it does get listed. Yugoslavia was not an empire so it doesn't count, the USSR was not an empire but it does (although relabeled "Russia"). Spain's conquest by France during the Napoleonic wars doesn't count, the Netherlands conquest by France during the Napoleonic wars does. It is all so arbitrary, effectively making the page List of Events That I Want to List. Agricolae (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I insist on the context. I made various modifications in order to detone the gray entries (because their are "just for context") and we can even remove them completely if their presence is so problematic. I don't think such removal will be an improvement (as the timeline will lose its context), but it can be done. Should it?

If you think some of the gray entries need change (Spain, France, Netherlands) - please propose what the change should be...

Spain was not converted as regular administrative departments of France - in contrast to the territories were the Netherlands are formed. That's the reason for this differentiation.

Yugoslavia. Yes, this is not a list of all freedom events. Yes, Yugoslavia was not an empire. In contrast the USSR is successor of the Russian empire. And also - Ottoman was an empire; Austria-Hungary was an empire.

So, where do you propose to put Macedonia? Alinor (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not getting us anywhere, other than convincing me that this page is a mistake from beginning to end. As it now exists, it is a list of national sovereignty. If you don't want it to be a list of national sovereignty, then it needs to lose the events not relevant to what it is intended to be. We don't have to find a place for Macedonia - it either fits the clearly defined criteria used in compiling the list (something sadly lacking here) and is included in the appropriate position, or it doesn't and is left out. The USSR is just the Russian Empire by another name, in your opinion - your POV. You are making the decision, all the decisions, based on your personal preference. The same with Spain and the Netherlands, (yes, you have your reasons, but why are those the relevant criteria?), the same with Macedonia, Poland, the Balkans, the Baltics, Great Britain, Portugal, etc., etc. Asking to debate each individual instance entirely misses the point. The page has no grounding outside of personal preference: yours for now, but substituting mine or some agreement between the two of us is no less arbitrary. These are not easy distinctions, there being, for example, a spectrum of domination by the USSR, running from Kazakstan to Georgia to Estonia to Hungary to Finland. How do we go about drawing the line somewhere along this spectrum? Your opinion? My opinion? some agreement between the two of us? This is part of the reason for the WP:NOR standard - to save/prevent editors from making such determinations based on their personal POV. Rather, pages are to be based on the consensus of published sources in the field in question. This list has no such external grounding, being entirely subject to the whims of editors, and asking me to debate my whims vs yours doesn't solve the real problem. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I already explained - the principles this page is based on are drawn from the other similar lists (and these are stated in the explanations and notes on the page itself). Maybe there are mistakes, and if so these should be corrected. Another question is if the gray entries should be entirely removed.

Macedonia. As it fits the criteria (territory formerly Ottoman) it is a yellow entry. And I think I put it where/how it should be, based on the rest of the principles. And because you raised the point that there is some discrepancy - I asked what do you propose for its proper place. Alinor (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

It was pointed out that in 1815 Switzerland was not part of France, but a separate "client republic" - a successor to the Swiss Confederacy from before. In contrast to the Netherlands that were regular french departments. Should we use 1815 or 1499? Alinor (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate page

This article already exists as List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty and Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe. The title of this article also has nothing to do with what the article is about. If this article is not fixed up soon, I'm turning it into a redirect. McLerristarr / Mclay1 08:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I oppose. While the three lists have a certain commonality all of them are currently different and each of them has its own distinct aspects. It may be possible to merge them (and expand the predecessors list), but as they currently are a redirect is not appropriate. Alinor (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this article have that the others don't (other than bright colours)? McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This focuses on empires dissolution, not on all independence events. Maybe it could be merged into the predecessors list, if the predecessors list is expanded backwards in time (up to the last empire, if it doesn't go that far already) and the relevant events are marked somehow as such (with bright or other colors?), and a note about independence war/etc. is attached. But I don't know if such changes are appropriate for the predecessors list. Alinor (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't about what you say it is. For example, Spain's entry is "Unification under the Catholic Monarchs". What has that got to do with a modern empire's loss of European territory? McLerristarr / Mclay1 09:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The gray entries are put there for context. As you see their columns are merged and their font is much smaller. Alinor (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Baltics

Currently the Baltic states are listed in 1990s (when they regained their independence) with the following note: "During the World War I and the Russian Civil War in 1917 and 1918 were established independent governments of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Ukraine. Only Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania retained their independence after the end of the civil war, but they were reconquered in 1940 during World War II." There was a discussion (see above) about having them listed in both 1918 and 1990s. As the Baltics were under foreign total control, not only military, but also civilian and administrative for ~50 years I think they should be listed only in 1990s (with the note cited here). Anyway, if we are going to use both 1918 and 1991 I propose the following solution (similar entries are implemented the other lists):

Country	Previous name	Foreign power	Independence date	First head of state	War for independence
Estonia	Governorate of Estonia, Estonian SSR	Russia	24 February 1918, 20 August 1991	Konstantin Päts, Arnold Rüütel	Estonian War of Independence, -

Alinor (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything against putting the three countries into a single entry, but for usability issues I'd propose to leave the double entries. First, as you yourself wanted to emphasize rather the 1991 dates, a single entry would be listed by the 1918 date (hope you meant it so too), kind of leaving the 1991 date on the background. Also, if someone wanted to sort the table by country name, the two entries would follow eachother and the double entries would be easily noticeable.H2ppyme (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The double entries should be put in 1991 as this is the later of the dates (just like Timor, Canada, Egypt, etc.). Alinor (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, this way the 1918 dates would be barely noticeable. It seems like double dates would be the most efficient way to leave them..H2ppyme (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why barely noticeable - they will get half of the line?

Double entries would dilute the timeline. Other cases of territories switching hands and other previous independences are not listed. I would prefer not to list 1918 Baltics at all (besides the 1918 note in their 1991 entries), but since these are an exceptional cases - let's combine 1918 and 1991 into a single entry, ordered in 1991 (again, similar approach is used for the other double-entries - Egypt, Timor, etc. - they are ordered according to their last date, not first date). Alinor (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think double entries are the most comfortable ones, if you look at similar articles, the Baltics have double entries there aswell. Or even if they have one entry, they are listed by their 1918 dates, because that was the beginning of the official statehood, not te regaining of independence from some occupation. It's true that other countries don't link their statehood to such a long time in the past, however the Baltics do - therefore one could even argue if the 1991 dates should even be included in this article, however I have no problem in keeping them here.H2ppyme (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this concerns articles focused on the independence dates (an maybe the other articles use 1918 as Baltics have continued/restored their 1918 states in 1991). This article focuses on the permanent lasting separation of territories from the foreign power, so regardless of the political entity that emerges out of foreign power (eg. new state established by some revolutionary movement or restoration of previous state or return of exiled government) the defining moment is the separation and it occurred in 1991. Of course we should add a note about the 1918-1940 period and maybe we should even include the 1918 details in the 1991 entry and make it a double-line one. Alinor (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but the recent de jure independence was 1918, it was the only de jure independence also. De facto there has been two independence dates, so both should be included...H2ppyme (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no single de jure stance of 1918-only - non-recognition by some states and governments-in-exile of the 1940s annexations is one thing, but other states recognized it and the USSR had full control for ~50 years. de jure inside the law structure of the Baltic states they have a single independence event - in 1918. de jure inside the soviet law structure their most recent independence is in 1991 (when soviet laws application there stopped). Alinor (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and because some states recognized it and some didn't, both dates should be added. If we'd add them in one box and sort them by 1991, then we'd totally disregard the fact that many states, including the 3 themselves, never legally recognized the annexation. Also, "Modern empires' loss of European territory" should include the fact that the Baltics became independent for 20 years, and not just in some sidenote, since 20 years is not some brief independence anymore. Still, I understand that my only concern for this article is that the Baltics are rightfully mentioned and your's is the article itself. You edit the general picture and I the details, not only about the Baltics, but other similar things aswell. So that is the reason why we will continue to work against eachother.H2ppyme (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Having a double-line entry with 1918+1991 includes the 20 years fact "not just in some sidenote". What we disagree is where to put it (1918 or 1991) and since all entries are sorted by the latest date (we have similar examples in the other lists such as Asia, Oceania, etc.) I think 1991 is the proper place.

Country	Previous name	Foreign power	Independence date	First head of state	War for independence
Estonia	Governorate of Estonia, Estonian SSR	Russia	24 February 1918 – 16 June 1940, 20 August 1991	Konstantin Päts, Arnold Rüütel	Estonian War of Independence, -

Is this OK? Alinor (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not okay, since Baltics' independence clearly came in 1918, and reeindependence in 1991. These are two different time periods - they should be amont Poland and Finland in that 1918 section, since that's how things really were, 5 countries became independent after WWI, not 2 and 3 mentioned in the 1991 section..Also, I really don't understand why you need to add the loss of independence date, since June 17 (as I remember, not 16.) was the beginning of the occupation. After the Nazi occupation, there was for several days an independent Estonian government again, so one could argue we should have September 22 1944 (unchecked date) as the final loss of independence. However as mentioned before, the de jure independence didn't suddenly stop, only the de facto independence did. Again abou the latest date - I really don't know why this has to be the case, article rules are changed all the time, if some cases are less applicable.H2ppyme (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the 1940s date (don't argue if it should be at begin or end of WWII) as I thought you want to emphasis the 20 years independence period. I would prefer to stick to 1918 and 1991 only.

de jure independence also stopped in 1940s - in the law framework of the USSR (and for countries recognizing the actions of the "puppet" communist-supported government, etc. that ammount to soviet annexation - as you know there was an Estonian Government applying for USSR membership. It's another question who considers it legitimate and who doesn't). In the law framework of the then-in-exile Baltic governments (and for countries not recognizing the actions ammounting to soviet annexation) it didn't stop.

So, 1940s-1990s the Baltics were: de-facto in USSR; de-jure in the USSR according to some states; de-jure not in the USSR according to some other states.

By latest date sorting I don't refer to some general wikipedia policy - this is only the date used to sort these particular lists (Americas, Africa, Asia, Oceania).

I think a double-line 1918+1991 entry, like the first here above, plus a note (maybe expanded to describe non-recognition of soviet annexation) sorted in 1991 is enough for showing the previous 1918-1940 independence. Alinor (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The way we have the two dates in the article now is fine enough. I see no reason why you need to put the two dates together. I understand that you have them all sorted by the latest date, but there is no reason why we couldn't change this.H2ppyme (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason for the change to the article that made it in its current form with two entries for the same country. The way it was before (a single 1991 entry with a 1918 note) was better, and maybe it will be an improvement if the single 1991 entry is replaced with a double-line entry with extended note as proposed here. But keeping two entries is inappropriate, the reason is that there could be only one "latest" date. Otherwise we go into 'history of xxx' territory, where there are many more dates, liberations and reconquests. Alinor (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Noone said there only HAS to be the latest date. And the republics were formed in 1918, so in case of one certain date, 1918 would definitely be the right one. Keeping two dates separately is a compromise itself...H2ppyme (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The LATEST date has to be in the list, it is meaningless without it. There could be a debate about whether EARLIER dates should be there or not, and how exactly. Keeping two dates at all (in a double line entry) is a compromise, but having two separate entries is inconsistent.

The republics formed in 1918 were conquered/reintegrated/annexed/whatever (depending on the POV) in 1940s and again separated in 1991. Alinor (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having the latest date (from my side) and the earlier date (from your side) is a compromise, putting them into a single box would be irrelevant aswell, but if you want to sort it by the latest date, it would not be suitable for me, and by the earlier date, not suitable for you. That's why I think having two entries sorted separately is a way we should leave it since I don't think our discussion would lead us any further...H2ppyme (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Having two entries is a change to the list, not "leaving it". Same as if I change it and then propose to "leave it as I changed it" even when you object.

I don't understand why you insist on having the double-line entry listed in 1918 instead of 1991 (otherwise it is acceptable to all compromise)? The russian control over the Baltis ended finally in 1991 (that's the topic of the list). The fact that the Baltics had a previous period of independence is made very clear by presense the double-line entry itself (we can also furthure emphasis it trough a rewording of the note, if needed). Where is the problem? Alinor (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Legend format

Should we change the coloring legend to the following? Alinor (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Legend for below table:   separation from overseas foreign controlling power — separation from neighboring foreign controlling power — achieved independence in different way