This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Firstly, I think this article should be renamed. In fact, it doesn't show a list of states, in the sense of the Montevideo Convention of 1933, but it shows a list of cultures, many of which we don't know if were single-state cultures or if they had many states: I refer to Adena, Olmecs, Chorrera, Van lang, which have archeological monuments, but not (or undeciphered) written documents. So, probably it will be never possible to understand if they had one or more states. In one case we know that a culture was multi-state, in fact we know the list of Greek poleis, but you put only two, Athens and Sparta, at a time when their rivalry had not yet began. In another case, Korea, Gojeoson is a legendary kingdom and the archeological results don't confirm that there was only one kingdom.
Secondly, the article it is not accurate. It puts Etruscans, Phrygians, D'mt, Kush before they came to existence, also according to the Wikipedia articles which they are linked to. Moreover, during the Xth century Chu and Qi still were vassals of Western Zhou: they shouldn't be regarded as indipendent states at that age. If this article (and the preceding and the following) were more accurate, if they put the states (or cultures) century by century, it would make sense an article per century, to show rise and fall of cultures and peoples. If the articles are almost identical each other, they loose sense and they should be merged together. Lele giannoni (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]