Talk:Enclave and exclave
|Enclave and exclave is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2004.|
|Current status: Former featured article|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 fait accompli
- 2 Land ceded to a foreign country
- 3 merge
- 4 Peculiar
- 5 independence movements
- 6 Islands
- 7 Paraguay
- 8 United States
- 9 Definition of Exclave:Denmark and Greenland
- 10 The definition is too complicated
- 11 Article merger and foreign compatability
- 12 picture/diagram error
- 13 Czech territory in Germany
- 14 Enclave within an enclave?
- 15 Is Northern Ireland an exclave...?
- 16 John F. Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964
- 17 Re-merge exclave
- 18 National railway passing through foreign territory
- 19 Wrong info on Kaliningrad
- 20 ore is ore
- 21 Sweden and Finland
- 22 Hopi reservation
- 23 Island exclaves of the EU??
- 24 Subnational highway passing through other internal territory
- 25 Inconvenient borders - United States
- 26 History section
- 27 Incredible
- 28 History
- 29 listosis
- 30 Enclaves and exclaves of the European Union
- 31 Reconsideration of merge of enclave and exclave
- 32 Name for entities which have to be accessed through another state?
- 33 The misery of Missouri
- 34 Off-subject?
- 35 "Enclave of (country)"
- 36 "one other state"
- 37 Brussels
- 38 temporary extraterritorialities
- 39 French Guiana
- 40 Subnational highway passing through other internal territory (redux)
- 41 Crimea
As you can see, I combined Enclave and Exclave. Since each page was already awfully long with examples, I stripped most of them and created List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang 05:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Land ceded to a foreign country
This section seems very doubtful to me. We must distinguish between property rights and territorial soverignity. The various cemeteries, tombs, etc., are still I believe under the soverignity of the surrounding country -- e.g. France gives the US some land to use for a cemetery, but its still under French soverignity; the US merely has rights of use, but not soverignity. The US has the right given it by France to use this land as a cemetery, but without the permission of France it does not have the right to use it for other unrelated purposes (e.g. it couldn't build a casino or a military base or toxic waste dump on it), nor can it alienate its rights (e.g. the US couldn't sell it to North Korea). So its still under French soverignity, because only France has full rights to deal with the land. I am sure the same applies to all the other such cases cited. --SJK 08:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- The term "ceded" seems strange to me. "Deeded" might be more appropriate. In fact, I'd question whether these really belong in this article at all. For example, the mere fact that the United Kingdom holds the title to some land on the Outer Banks doesn't make it British territory -- the U.K., in this case, is no different than any other landowner. Should this section be deleted entirely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. It's mainly nonsense. While "cede" can mean merely give or concede in colloquial contexts, when land is "ceded" between states, it is said to be a transfer of sovereign territory. A "cession" of land between states means that the land in question becomes the sovereign territory of the recipient state and is a territorial loss to the ceding state. Whoever the contemptible dope is that decided to use the word in this context should have his keyboard taken away. Cession is one thing, the simple grant of title to land is another, as is the granting of extraterritorial possession short of full sovereignty, and as is the merely symbolic dedication of land (which is sometimes accompanied by legally ineffective language suggesting the transfer of sovereignty). Most of the "cessions" cited in the current article are in the latter section, (perhaps combined with simple land title vested in a foreign state). Someone change the mess. I'm too tired.
well since this section is still included, i'd like to mention the German Cemetary in Cannock Chase, Staffs for inclusion as land owned by Germany in the UK, i think the JFK monument is a legal minefield that would take a team of lawyers a decade to solve, i disagree with your interpretation of the law but i'm not going to challenge the consensus on wikipedia Tim.email@example.com 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Removed Belgian cemetary's from this list. Although the plaque on entry of the commonwealth sites eludes to the transfer of property rights, this is not actually the case. Source: Dutch, Belgian minister of defense on property rights and/or sovreignity of foreign military cementary's: Link --126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I am delighted to see the merge done so quickly (and I agree with the separate list). However, I do feel that the article should be on enclave as the more familiar term - see talk:enclave#merge. But I have to admit that the Wikipedia stats do not confirm this: 330 articles link to enclave and 255 link to exclave. Anyone agree with me that the main title should be enclave? Note that there are double redirects that need fixed wherever we put the article. -- RHaworth 16:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've cleaned up the doubles. —Tamfang 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- When the merge was proposed I went to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and discussion there resulted in this policy which favours the current "X and Y" naming convention. Therefore I say leave it at "enclave and exclave". We should try to decide issues with reference to generic policies rather than special pleading (of course, there are exceptions to this ;) jnestorius(talk) 09:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not quite sure that the use of the term 'peculiar' in the ecclesiastical context in England and Wales is quite right. A peculiar is a parish or group of parishes that were subject to an unusual form of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This might involve the local Cathedral or an indiviual prebendary having a jurisdiction that would normally belong to the bishop. Similarly some minster churches and monsteries had such jurisdiction, and (if dissolved at the Reformation, the jurisdiction sometimes passed into lay hands. The extent of the exemption varied; it is most commonly encountered in the context of the probate of wills, but might also relate to episcopal visitation. Royal peculiars differed in that they were answerable only to the king, and thus wholly exempt for episcopal oversight.
Perhaps the foregoing ought to be an aricle in its own right! Peterkingiron 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone, possibly me, had written:
- Many exclaves today have an independence movement, especially if the exclave is far away from the mainland.
188.8.131.52 changed it to:
- Many exclaves and enclaves today have an independence movement, especially if the subject is far away from the mainland.
I disagree with both changes, and have reverted. The first, "and enclaves", is redundant: if an enclave is not an exclave, it is already independent. The second, "subject", is strange: as a noun it usually means a person, not a territory. On another hand, "subject territory" would be acceptable. —Tamfang 07:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sure enough it was me (April 12). The previous version was:
- Many exclaves today have some sort of ideology to become independent, especially if the exclave is far away from the Mainland.
- Y'all may take into account my parental bias. —Tamfang 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- If we did count all islands as exclaves, how many thousands of entries would this list have? More efficient (and perhaps more interesting) to count them only if they are largely surrounded by foreign territorial waters, like St Pierre & Miquelon. —Tamfang 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Islands usually don't count as exclaves since most of them can be reached through territorial waters (or contiguous zone, or even EEZ), therefore not leaving the country they belong to.
- Exceptions to this, amongst others, is Isla Martín García, part of Argentina when all waters around it are part of Uruguay.
- Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are connected to international waters through a tiny sliver of ocean: one can therefore go from France to there by boat without entering Canada (but you still have to leave France to do so). — Poulpy 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Paraguay is landlocked and surrounded by Brazil, Bolivia, and Argentina. By "a foreign terretory", does the defenition mean "one continuous froeign territory" or "a landlocked area that is foreign". If it is the latter than Paraguay should be listed as an enclave and if it is the former than the definition needs to be altered to say "one continuous froeign territory".--Dr who1975 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I have looked up the defenition of enclave elsewhere and changed it accrodingly.--Dr who1975 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There are at least two parts of the U.S. (in MN and WA) that are penisulas with a land border on Canada but otherwise seperated by water from the rest of the U.S. How do these to relate to enclave/exclave? For that matter, how about Alaska? If they are not true 'claves do they deserve a mention anyway? 184.108.40.206 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- All enclaves/excalves including Point Roberts and Northwest Angle are listed on List of enclaves and exclaves which is linked to on this article (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 02:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the current proposed definition (an exclave is [a territory] which is politically attached to a larger piece but not actually contiguous with it). According to this, Denmark would be an exclave of Greenland, as the latter is larger than the former. The definition does not take order of colonisation or location of the seat of government, if any, into account. I would propose that we discuss two territories being mutual exclaves. (The territory (island) of Greenland and the territory (peninsula) of Denmark are mutual exclaves, both being part of the state (kingdom) of Denmark. Topologically, it is immaterial which territory is larger; it is simply important that the two territories are not connected above ground. samwaltz 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- The definition of Exclave usually excludes islands and non-integral parts of countries. Greenland is an island and a dependency (a non-integral part) of Denmark, so it is not an exclave of Denmark.
- You do bring up a good point with regards to the Seat of Government. What is the main land and what is the exclave? That would be dependent on the definition. I would make the section with the Seat of Government, even if smaller, the main land. (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Choosing the seat of government as the main land may lead to some unexpected results, such as Denmark (Copenhagen is on the island of Zealand) or Equatorial Guinea (since Malabo in on the island of Bioko, the continental Río Muni being more than 100 km away). Pacific archipelago states, such as Kiribati, might be of interest, too. — Poulpy 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The definition is too complicated
The difference between ex and en clave is simply the point of view : Kallinigrad is the excalve of Russia and an enclave to everyone else. It's really not that complicated. To quote the OED (definition for 'exclave'):
- A portion of territory separated from the country to which it politically belongs and entirely surrounded by alien dominions: seen from the viewpoint of the ‘home’ country (as opp. to an enclave, the same portion of territory as viewed by the surrounding dominions). Also transf. and fig.
- What's your point? The definition in the article (see first sentence) is more precise but no more complicated than that. —Tamfang 05:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the issue that 129.173 has isn't that the definition is complicated but rather that it's inaccurate. It is certainly true that most dictionaries give the narrow definition of exclave which excludes Kaliningrad, Alaska, Nakhichevan, etc. Many authorities explicitly say that it is incorrect to describe such "fragments" as exclaves. However, having two words for one thing and no words for the other seems inefficient, so many geographers have taken to using the broader definition of exclave used in the article. It would be good to discuss this controversy within the article; I have no references to hand with which to do so myself. I think we have made the right choice in opting for the broader definition within Wikipedia, but we need to advise readers that this is not universally accepted. jnestorius(talk) 12:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The OED definitions encompass Nakhichevan as both an enclave and an exclave. The Wikipedia definitions include Nakhichevan as an exclave, but not an enclave (as it borders more than one country). On the other hand, Wikipedia includes Cabinda as an exclave, but the OED doesn't as it has a coastlin. However, some sources define enclave in the narrow way Wikipedia does (i.e. surrounded by a single foreign country), and then define exclave as the enclave viewed from its parent country (i.e. the same extension as the OED, but extending a different definition of enclave). One example is this PDF (13.5 MB):
Article merger and foreign compatability
Delighted as I am sure many people are by the merging of enclave and exclave, may I point out that this has caused a considerable hindrance to the functionality of the in other languages toolbar, as most other languages have two seperate articles. It was only thanks to two links to Spanish wikipedia (one for each of enclave and exclave, please rectify), that I could find the German article for which I was searching, namely Enklave, and I was horrified to see that there was no link back to the English version. I hope that other international, multilingual or lingual student wikipedians would join me in saying, UNDO THE MERGE, or if someone has a better solution to this problem which does not require such a drastic and controversial course of action, DO IT. --Svm2 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In the 1st picture/diagram exemplifying de difference between enclave and exclave, it is said that "C is A's enclave and B's exclave", when, in my opinion, the capture should say that "C is simultaneously B's enclave and B's exclave", since C is a portion of B's territory, not related to A in this aception. That seems to be the same reasoning used for the capture in the second picture diagram.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gatarron (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please sign your post on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). New comment usually goes to the bottom of the page, not top. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- From my understanding, "enclave" means a territory surrounded by another territory but not part of it, while "exclave" is a small part of a territory that is geographically separate from it. The word "enclave" is use to describe the territory in question, not its relationship with its motherland. The caption should say "C is an enclave in A, and it is B's exclave."--Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 03:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- Another way to say it is "C is an exclave of B, enclaved by or within A." —Tamfang 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible for something to be simultaneously an enclave and an exclave of the same thing. That would mean it's part of it surrounded by other parts of it - i.e. just a normal, regular, common-or-garden part of it. JIP | Talk 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The current photos for Figure 1 and 2, do not depict B surrounding the enclaved countries, and seems to be assuming readers know 'B' surrounds the other territories. Because of this, it may take some time for people to understand the diagrams. If I'm incorrect, please correct me. To fix, either describe B as surrounding the perimeters of the other countries within the figure descriptions, or provide diagrams depicting B surrounding the other countries? --roger (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Czech territory in Germany
The Czech Republic article currently states: "The Czech Republic also possesses a 30,000-square-metre (7.4-acre) exclave in the middle of the Hamburg Docks, which was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships. The territory reverts to Germany in 2018."
Is the above true? While it may have been in the Versaille Treaty, is this still legally the position? Can any one provide a source for this? I have found one source:, but it is a magazine article and I would not consider it reliable. The Czech-German territory is not on the list of exclaves so if it can be properly shown that it is true, it should presumably be added to the list. The topic is also being discussed at Talk:Czech Republic. Could any one help in verifying the claim? Redking7 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I translated the article Moldauhafen from the German Wikipedia. MaartenVidal (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Enclave within an enclave?
I recently visited Dibba and looking at a map of the region, it seemed to me that there is a UAE enclave located inside a part of Oman which is itself an enclave in the UAE, located some 10 km north by northwest of Fujairah city. If that is correct, I suppose this would mean that this is an enclave inside another enclave?
- Yes, see Madha and Nahwa. Jan Krogh has some better maps and pictures. —Tamfang (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Northern Ireland an exclave...?
- Not in the narrow sense, because it's not surrounded. I think it would also not be considered an exclave in a broader sense because it's easy to travel between there and Britain without passing through the Republic. —Tamfang (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not an enclave, because it is not completely surrounded.
If UK waters are continuously from Britain to Ireland, then it is not really a exclave either, any more than any other island that is part of a country but has no bridge to the mainland.
If international waters separate it, then I would say it is an exclave. No one seriously suggests that Alaska is not an exclave of the USA, evne though you can travel from California to Alaska by sea without going through Canada.
John F. Kennedy Memorial Act, 1964
- The inscription on the JFK memorial reads: 'This acre of English ground was given to the United States of America by the people of Britain in memory of John F. Kennedy, born 19th May, 1917: President of the United States 1961-63: died by an assassin’s hand 22nd November,1963. . . .' It seems that title to the memorial acre was given to the Kennedy Memorial Trust. This would presumably not constitute more than a gift of title to realty and not a cession of sovereignty to the United States. People will say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
the act states that theland is vested in the united states to be administered the jfk foundation as any other land vested in the united states, so i would consider it US soil18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
If I understand the matters right, several years ago exclave was merged together with enclave to form this article and also List of enclaves and exclaves; the new articles have substantially evolved since then, but not so long ago a user (not an IP, but with small edit count) decided to revive the old version of exclave. The latter now displays some outdated arrangement in comparison to this article and moreover promotes forking etc. Shouldn't it be redirected again? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Thanks for the alert. Foolish of me (as the one who did the merge) to unwatch Exclave. I suppose I'll have to check the new content there and see whether any of it is not already included in List of enclaves and exclaves. —Tamfang (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
National railway passing through foreign territory
In the section of national railway passing through foreign territory, the train tracks in Singapore can be added. The trains running on this train track are run by Malaysia. See [Keretapi_Tanah_Melayu]. Vedabit (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- However, unlike other examples in the article, the Keretapi Tanah Melayu tracks does not merely passing through Singapore; it terminates in central Singapore at the Tanjong Pagar railway station, the southern terminus of the KTM rail network. Not sure if this constitutes "national railway passing through foreign territory". The railway issue is sort of a dispute between Malaysia and Singapore. While Singapore has its own rapid transit network, the KTM railway is the only intercity (and international) railway in Singapore; the two networks are distinct from each other. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking that my example of the KTM of Malaysia running through Singapore is an equivalent example of that given in the main article "Bolivia is landlocked and has no access to the sea, but a rail route runs through Chile from La Paz to the port of Arica on the Pacific Ocean" in the section National railway passing through another state's territory. Vedabit (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Wrong info on Kaliningrad
There is a sentence in the article: "However, the Russian coastline between Finland and Estonia is virtually inaccessible, especially in the winter, so Kaliningrad ... " This sentence is obviously wrong. The largest port of the Baltic Sea is Primorsk Oil Terminal located exactly on the Russian coastline near St. Petersburg, i.e. only accessed by travelling between Finland and Estonia. -- Avellano (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
ore is ore
- Due to inability to agree on a route through easy terrain, the
phosphateiron ore railway in Mauritania originally had to use a tunnel near Choum to avoid the territory of Spanish Sahara.
Sweden and Finland
Aren't Sweden and Finland together an exclave of the EU? Or does the Øresund Bridge count as a land connection? And if they are an exclave, then Iceland would not be the northernmost exclave if it joins the EU, as claimed in the article. Goustien (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's reasonable. Would it belong in subnational enclaves and exclaves? Or extraterritoriality? Shannon Garcia (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Native American reservations are not extraterritorial to the US. They are "dependent nations" and are fully under the control and soverignty of the US. In the case of the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, for example, note that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation is the senior law enforcement agency, and that the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah exercise jurisdiction over non-Natives for offenses committed on the reservations.
Island exclaves of the EU??
- Some members of the European Union, including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta are entirely on islands. As a result, the islands of Great Britain (most of the United Kingdom), Ireland (Ireland and part of the United Kingdom), Cyprus, and Malta are exclaves of the European Union. Iceland is a possible future member of the European Union; if Iceland does join the European Union, it will be the northernmost exclave of the European Union.
- Agreed. In fact the whole section confuses the EU with the continent of Europe. Isidore (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with this. Quite frankly I consider it nonsense to claim that Madeira is an exclave of Portugal just because it is an island. Similarly for the Azores. And the Canary islands for Spain. And the Balearics. Sicily? Corsica? Where does the list end? Is Crete an exclave of Greece? If so what about the other 1,000 islands of Greece? If not, QED! What about Indonesia? It is all islands? On the other hand I would argue that St Pierre et Miquelon is an exclave of France in Canada just as Ceuta is an exclave of Spain in Morocco. Oecussi is surely an exclave of Timor Leste even though it has a coastline. How can Iceland, an independent island state be remotely considered an "exclave of the EU" should it become a member? On this basis every EU country outside mainland continental Europe is an "exclave" of the EU which is patently absurd. Some serious editing is required of this article for it to make sense and to remove the contradictions. Mariscalcus (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, will someone argue against removing the islands from the article? —Tamfang (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- From here in my tiny little exclave, I agree that an island cannot be either an exclave or an enclave. In my experience, every good definition of enclave and exclave, as well as their shared etymology require a surrounding "foreign" territory (from terra, Latin for land). One might argue about whether an enclave must be completely surrounded by land, or whether that surrounding land must belong to just one foreign territory, or whether an exclave can border multiple foreign territories and even have a coastline (like the canonical exclave of Kaliningrad). But for both terms and in every variant, a land border between "clave" and foreign territory is a requirement. Having ethnic or social differences from an immediately surrounding neighbour obviously requires there be an immediate neighbour. A whole island doesn't have an immediate neighbour by definition. But I am unsure of the precise situation regarding part of an island as an exclave. I don't feel that Northern Ireland is an exclave, even though it is undeniably part of the United Kingdom with a geographical separation from the main part of that territory (represented by Great Britain), and it is not an island, sharing a land border with a foreign territory from which it differs socio-politically. But I am unable to provide a precise topographical and political definition of exclave that would include Kaliningrad but exclude Northern Ireland. ChrisJBenson (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Subnational highway passing through other internal territory
- India's "quasi-federal republic" status or otherwise has no connection with its internal highways. Vedabit (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The information "Kota, a city in Rajasthan surrounded by territory of Madhya Pradesh, ..." is incorrect. Refer Google Maps [] for Kota's location outside Madhya Pradesh. Kota is at least 50+ km from any border of Madhya Pradesh. Vedabit (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Inconvenient borders - United States
The White Pass and Yukon Railway crosses US-AK, CA-BC and CA-Yukon territory and is therefore an amalgam of three separate companies.
In Australia, the colonies all of the same mother country and later states all of the same federation could be jealous of cross-border routes and sometimes blocked these railways or railways of particular gauges. The federal Commmonwealth government has no constitutional powers to build railways in any state except with the agreement of that state. Tabletop (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a lack of context. The whole article gives the impression enclaves and exclaves were born out of thin air the day before yesterday. We need a brief History section to explain what the situation was in the not so distant past as regard enclaves and exclaves.--Lubiesque (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, someone had deleted twice, the following addition I posted to this article.
This was deleted twice within seconds of my posting.
While enclaves and exclaves are now seen as geographical oddities, if only because there are so few of them, this was not the case in a not so distant past.
Enclaves and exclaves belonging to sovereign countries did not emerge in the New World above all because the various European crowns did not transplant the feudal system in their newly-acquired possessions and therefore prevented the development of a territorial aristocracy owning non-contiguous fiefs, lordships and seigneuries.
However, Europe - above all the so-called Holy Roman Empire (comprising present-day Germany, Austria and parts of adjacent countries), the Catholic Netherlands (Belgium), the Swiss Confederacy – emerged from the Middle Age with a plethora of medium and small independent or near-independent states, often made of a number of non-contiguous parts or at least possessing some detatched parts, that we would now call exclaves.
The Germany that emerged from the Thirty Years War comprised more than 350 states: secular states such kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, margraviates, baronies; ecclesiastical states such as archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, as well as about 75 Free Cities, a very large number possessing nearby or distant enclaves, often since the Middle Age.
There were arguably well in excess of a thousand enclaves and exclaves in 17th and 18th century Europe. The great majority were to vanish in the course of territorial consolidation and the abolition of feudalism brought about by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era. --Lubiesque (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unsourced information, and images on a map are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH. I did not "delete" your information, I merely reverted your edits, and politely asked you to source your information and not to synthesize your writing from original research. If this is something that is not acceptable to you, I'm not sure what else to say. It's how we do things in Wikipedia, and it allows us to write the best encyclopedia on the planet. Taking edits personally is probably going to get you more upset than you should. Just relax, and source your information.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I find it rather ironical that after having "reverted" my edit within 5 seconds after I posted it (are you on a 24/7 watch?), you demand from me that I source my information while this article is filled with "citations needed" notices and that there is a This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article (...) inset right in the middle of this article.
In fact well over 90% of the info in this article is not sourced.
Of the 20 sources it contains, the first 2 are definitions found in online dictionaries (sigh), 3 others are dead links (6,7,19) others are irrelevant sources such as List of lingua francas, or link that lead you to the article "United Kingdom" (!?). Source 15, 17, 18 are fake sources.
"Enclaves may be created for a variety of historical, political or geographical reasons." IMO, this might be the most important statement in the article, yet it is not sourced AT ALL. When you click on "historical", "political" and "geographical" you end up with generic articles on "History", "Politics" and "Geography". So much for "sources"...
- Just because "over 90% of the info" is unsourced is not an excuse to propagate such errors. And yes, I watch every article to which I've contributed. I just click "My Watchlist", and I see immediately what changes are made. 99% of edits I watch are perfectly fine. If you're so hot to clean up this article, then do so. That's what I do, I don't come to an article's talk page, complain about how I've been treated, instead, I generally fix it without discussing it at all. So if you're knowledgeable about this field, then source your edits, and fix the rest of the article. And again, maps are not sources, just pretty images. Why? Because someone has to interpret what's on those maps, making it original research. A good source is one where we can click on the link and get confirmation of what you've written. Also, use inline citations to make it neat and reader usable. That's it, it's not that hard. But if your choice is to get upset because you don't want to try, then I have no patience. Also, one more thing. Use the semicolon to indent your replies. It keeps it neat and clean and we know to which comment you are replying. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The lists in the present article are in danger of duplicating whole sections of List of enclaves and exclaves (which I split off in 2006). Any objection to cutting each list down to, say, three preeminent examples? —Tamfang (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- you forgot to list Llivia, the Spanish Enclave in France Tim.Bucknall@gmail.com126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Enclaves and exclaves of the European Union
This section seems to be devoted to a concept that doesn't exist and has been imagined by a Wikipedia editor. There are no actual examples cited of non-EU territories completely surrounded by two or more EU countries, which is what the section tries to deal with. Secondly, there already exist sections that deal with national enclaves and exclaves. The European Union isn't a country or territory and the term "European Union Enclave [or exclave]" seems to be an entirely novel one. Does anyone object to the removal/redispersal of this section? -Lo2u (T • C) 20:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Reconsideration of merge of enclave and exclave
I'd like to suggest that we should reconsider the merger of articles on enclave and exclave. In many ways this merged article is good, because the two concepts are very similar, and much of the explanation of either is to explain the differences. Whilst they are definately two different concepts, mixing them together in an encyclopedia article is fine providing it enhances rather than reduces understandability.
However the recent introduction of Wikidata and its use for recording interwiki links has shown up some limitations:
- Because Wikidata is a database and not an encyclopedia, its data model needs to be clean. It really has no choice but to see enclave and exclave as separate concepts and hence seperate items. Unfortunately Wikidata can only link to articles (and not redirect pages), so that means it cannot link to anything appropriate on WP:EN. Arguably that is Wikidata's problem.
- Most of our colleagues on other language Wikipedias have also chosen to write separate articles for the two concepts (see, for example, de:Enklave and de:Exklave). Again, arguably that is their choice. However it does mean that anybody looking at our article sees only a few obscure interwiki links, and is lead to think that the other languages don't cover the concepts. Whilst if you look at above WP:DE article's interwiki links, it looks as if every language covers them except English.
Now I've got feel that this means our decision to merge was wrong. But I'm far from certain. Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with it. Thoughts? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely one article for both to avoid repetition. If Wikidata cannot handle it, that, as you say, is Wikidata's problem. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikidata indeed can not handle such situations, but there is hardly anything we can do about it. Interwiki links left in Wikipedia articles overwrite Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- In many ways I agree with both the above comments. But are we not in danger of falling into rather a silo mentality, rather than a holistic approach to the various Wikimedia projects. And it isn't just Wikidata (that was just what caused me to notice it); the problem already existed with the in-article interwiki links. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, I, too, am against unmerging this article. While I do feel for WikiData (being a data guy myself), this is not a kind of problem that can be outsourced to other wikis so WikiData would have a "clean model". As WikiData grows, it will run into this kind of problems over and over again, and at some point a different solution (i.e., other than badgering other wikis to merge/unmerge/rename/move their stuff) would be needed. For now, I don't see a good reason why redirects cannot be allowed to be the targets of interwiki links—that would solve most of the problems of this kind! Leaving some of the interwikis in Wikipedia, as Yaroslav suggested, is also a workable solution. Perhaps other solutions (maybe even better ones) exist as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2013; 14:41 (UTC)
Name for entities which have to be accessed through another state?
Is there a name for a body which can only be accessed by going through another entity? I am working on an article on McKissick's Island which is on the east side of the Missouri River but is considered part of Nebraska (the beginning text of the article is in the geography section of Nemaha County, Nebraska. The island was originally attached to Nebraska but the river changed course separating it from Nebraska and only accessible by going through Missouri. It is still technically attached to Nebraska and could be accessed by boat but in practice you have to cross bridge through another state. Various articles elsewhere refer to it as an exclave but that does not truly fit the definition. These scenarios of course apply numerous times along major rivers. Thanks.Americasroof 16:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The phrases "practical exclave" and "inaccessible district" have been used. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- The term "pene-exclave" has also been used. The article states, "Pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves are regions that are not conterminous with the main land region, that are not entirely surrounded by alien land or alien territorial waters, and that have land access only through a second country. Hence, they are enclaves or exclaves for practical purposes, without meeting the strict definition." Jeff in CA 18:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Tamfang and Jeff.16:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The misery of Missouri
Where a lake meets a US state line... it can get interesting. Here's a spot in Bing Maps that illustrates an enclave. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=36.498341~-92.890549&lvl=17&dir=0&sty=h&q=36.498%2C%20-92.894&form=LMLTCC This is a part of Missouri reachable by land, but you cross into Arkansas and back into Missouri. Google Maps attempts to route the state line around the enclave!! See https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=36.497923,-92.894042&hl=en&sll=36.497931,-92.893999&sspn=0.001095,0.002583&t=h&mra=mift&mrsp=1&sz=19&z=19 (This looks like a complete joke!)
- Google maps of borders, especially when the border follows the course of a river, are very inaccurate. They frequently bisect islands in such a river that in reality are wholly in one country or the other (or in one U.S. state or the other). It appears as though Google gave a summer intern the job of marking borders using line segments on a low resolution map. ("Island? What island?") As an example, zoom in on Google maps and look at the U.S.-Canada border along the Rainy River between Minnesota and Ontario. The line segments carelessly bisect many of the islands in the river, whereas the actual boundary carefully avoids islands. The U.S. Geological Survey's GIS mapping is much more accurate. And the USGS has some very good tools at their website for viewing their GIS maps.
- Jeff in CA 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am missing something, but I cannot see that the sections on railways and roads have anything whatsoever to do with the article's subject. Interesting though they may be, they should be somewhere else. (Some of the examples seems spurious, most obviously the Korean railway.) Davidships (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Enclave of (country)"
Campione d'Italia is a part of Italy that is surrounded by Switzerland. It is an exclave of Italy, obviously, but is it also correctly described as
- An enclave of Italy within (or surrounded by) Switzerland? (That is, an enclave that Italy "has"?) Or
- An enclave of Switzerland belonging to Italy? (That is, an enclave that Switzerland "has"?)
I've always followed usage 1 and find usage 2 very confusing. The article follows usage 2 in the long caption of the diagram of examples, but switches to usage 1 elsewhere.
Are both usages supported by reliable sources? If so, the article needs to say so and cite them. Or did someone just get it wrong? If so, it needs to be fixed.
- Afterthought: I wonder if that caption was written by a non-native speaker of English who does not appreciate the difference between "has" and "contains". --188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
"one other state"
I find this definition of an enclave too restrictive, and not universally supported. On this page we can find a definition from the OED which says "alien dominions". The actual footnote to the French could be naturally take to mean "a foreign country", not "one foreign country", and it seems that that word "one" is what makes A2 not an enclave, even though that is counter-intuitive.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC) sorry, I just realized this was adumbrated above under "too complicated". --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to have a paragraph about Brussels? Brussels is entirely surrounded by Flanders, but is considered by Walloons as an integral (in a literary not literal sense) part of their homeland. The future fate of Brussels is one of the major factors keeping Belgium together. Walloons are not willing to let it go, and so would consider it in a divided Belgium as an exclave of Wallonia, whereas Flamands are not willing to consider this and would consider it integrally (literally) as part of Flanders. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Temporary extraterritorialities might be interesting in this article In 1943 the Canadian government declared the hospital room where Princess Juliana of the Netherlands gave birth to Princess Margriet as territory of the Netherlands so that the new Princess would have full Dutch citizenship. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- This example is included in the separate and more exhaustive List of enclaves and exclaves.
- Jeff in CA (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
To the contributor who added French Guiana, although I am not the person who deleted French Guiana, I agree with the deletion. French Guiana does not meet the criteria for any category on this page. It borders the ocean and two countries (Suriname and Brazil), not one as required, and therefore is not a practical exclave (pene-exclave). Jeff in CA (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- As no one else has done it, I have now deleted this entry.Jeff in CA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Subnational highway passing through other internal territory (redux)
Unlike the national level instances that are listed, which involve crossing sovereign territory, it seems more difficult to wrap one's head around the examples of subnational highways passing through other internal territory. With the national sovereignty aspect absent, other factors enter the picture — access or lack thereof in the second territory, responsibility for maintenance of the part in the second territory, presence of intersecting roads that make alternate routes possible, the class of the section of highway within the second territory and the designation or name of the highway or road.
The examples for the United States, as described, illustrate several of these:
- Interstate 684: (a) has no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance; (c) has the highway classification pertaining to federal government primacy (no name change).
- New York State Route 17/Interstate 86: (a) intersects other roads in the second territory, making alternate routes possible; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance; (c) is the responsibility of the second territory for law enforcement; (d) in part, at least, has the highway classification pertaining to federal government primacy.
- What is known about New Hampshire Route 153 other than the fact that the road briefly passes through a second territory? Does it retain the New Hampshire Route designation there?
- Minnesota State Highway 23: (a) has no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance.
- Delaware's Hopkins Road: (a) might have no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) is the responsibility of the "home" territory for maintenance.
- Delaware's Beaver Dam Road: (a) might have no entrance or exit in the second territory; (b) might not have a defined responsibility for maintenance.
Are there any defining characteristics that should apply beyond simply passing out of and back into the "home" territory?
To me, the most interesting scenario is a subnational highway or road that, while in the second territory, has no departure points that lead to alternate negotiable routes across a third border location or, obviously, to connections with the road network of the second territory. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- If Russia is treating the waters of the Strait of Kerch as if they were all Russian territorial waters, then the answer is no. I do not know whether that water passage (or part of it) between the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea is still considered as part of Ukraine, in order for Ukraine's ports on the Sea of Azov to have access to the Black Sea. Jeff in CA (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)