Talk:Enclave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Enclave appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2004.

Contents 1 Kudos 2 West Berlin 3 Copyvio 4 Idiosyncratic definition 5 Ethnic enclaves 6 Human geography 7 Northern Ireland? 8 Singapore 9 Andorra 10 Kwang-Chou-Wan 11 SMOM 12 Interwiki Link 13 Diplomatic enclaves? 14 Sovereigity vs. Ownership 15 Baarle-Nassau 16 Piedmont, CA 17 Caserma Ederle 18 Subnational enclaves 19 Proposed merger 19.1 Merge Vote 19.2 Main entry at which -clave then? 20 Khachmaz 21 Long Island 22 References? 23 merge

[edit] Kudos

I'd like to say that this article is VERY well written, and kudos to all who have participated in it's creation. DryGrain 01:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] West Berlin

For example, West Berlin was an enclave of East Germany which surrounded it, but an exclave of West Germany, to which it belonged.

-- is the above correct? I find the definition confusing. -- Tarquin

I never heard the term exclave until five minutes ago, but I suppose it is correct. Jeronimo

Neither had I, and my dictionary doesn't have it. -- Tarquin

You can paste this in your dictionary ;-), from http://www.webster.com:

"a portion of a country separated from the main part and constituting an enclave in respect to the surrounding territory "

This seems to be exactly the same as what is written in this article.

So my example above is the wrong way round? er, wait... no, it's the right way round... arg! -- Tarquin

[edit] Copyvio

I found the first sentence on Google by searching for "enclave exclave":

An enclave is a geographical territory which is completely surrounded by foreign territory. Such a territory is called an enclave only in respect to the surrounding foreign territory and an exclavein respect to the territory to which it is politically attached. [1]

Is this a copyright violation, or should we just credit it, or what? --Ed Poor

I think it's been changed plenty enough for us to not worry about copyright, hasn't it? --Camembert

If my example above is correct (gives me a headache!), stick that in too -- Tarquin

I've given the opening a rewrite, for clarity, but it also resolses the copyright issue. Ed, I think exclave should be changed back to a redirect to here, as I don't think either article will ever be more than a stub. Besides, readers of exclave need to go to enclave to understand the term anyway. -- Tarquin

[edit] Idiosyncratic definition

The definition of enclave given here seems quite idiosyncratic (in that it doesn't include coastal enclaves). Is there are any particular support for that position being "correct"? - Khendon

All definitions I've read specifically say that an exclave

1. is separated from another part of the country (so San Marino doesn't count)
2. is completely surrounded by one other country (so having sea-borders doesn't count)

However, these are frequently called enclaves anyway, in spite of the fact that it is technically incorrect. Maybe this could be mentioned as well. Jeronimo

Odd. My dictionary illustrates exclave with Cabinda. —Tamfang 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic enclaves

What about ethnic enclaves? For example, the Serb minority groups in Albanian controlled Kosovo are frequently reffered to as enclaves.2toise 11:59, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Human geography

"Human geography" sounds false here: is this a NPOV term for what used to be called "political geography" (as opposed to "physical geography}"? The magazine Progress in Human Geography 'provides a rigorous, critical appraisal of geographical work in the social sciences and humanities' according to their website. That sounds like a more sensible use of "human geography." In this present context it's a little sugary no? Wetman 12:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC).

Contrived is the word I'd've used. 'Cause, y'know, canine geography doesn't allow for enclaves. I think a switch to political geography would probably be a little more sensical. In all seriousness, "human geography" is probably a legitimate term, but so is "political geography"; and although the geography page names "political g." as a subset of "human g.", I see no reason why the subject of national borders can't be wholly contained in "political", in which case it is the more precise, if not accurate, term. -TimeLord mbw 22:16, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland?

What is the status of Northern Ireland? -- Anon.

It wouldn't seem to be any more an enclave than, for instance, Australia... it's on an island, yes, but it isn't completely surrounded by one other country the way Lesotho would be. Hard to say what to do with water as a boundary; is Campobello an enclave? - it's the site of FDR's old summer home, joined to Maine by a bridge but to New Brunswick only by boat, yet it's technically in Canada, eh?

Nonetheless, I do question the claim that Although Canada and the Republic of Ireland, for example, border just one other country, they have enough access to international waters not to be considered near-enclaves. Which one country does Canada traditionally border, France, Russia or Denmark? --carlb

Northern Ireland cannot be considered an exclave (and therefore not an enclave) because it is not foreign territory that separates it from the main body of territory, it is water. //Big Adamsky 07:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

Singapore is no more an enclave or a "coastal country" than Sri Lanka or Bahrain are. It is an island off the south coast of Malaya. Andrew Yong 17:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Technically Singapore is no longer an island since it's connected to Malaysia by a man-made strip of land known as the Causeway... but I agree that Singapore hardly fits the criterion of having only a "small coastal section". Jpatokal 03:28, 24 May 2004 (UTC) (in Singapore)

[edit] Andorra

Does Andorra belong here too? Given that it's a French-Spanish co-principality sandwiched between France and Spain, could it be said to be a dual enclave-exclave of either/both? Just thinking about it does my head in... --Gene_poole 06:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

If so, also Luxemburg and Liechtenstein are enclaves, or every country which do not have any coastal section (Austria, Mongolia, Hungary, ...). Kahkonen 07:24, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

Those are called landlocked countries. — Miguel 22:15, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

I was thinking more from the perspective that as it is jointly ruled by both France and Spain, these countries could possibly be uniquely interpreted as a single entity, within which Andorra is enclaved.Gene_poole 09:20, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kwang-Chou-Wan

I have written a short article on Kwang-Chou-Wan, which was a French enclave in southern China (much like Hong Kong and Macau). I'm guessing that this page would be the ideal place for the article to link to but this page would probably need a sub heading titled "Historical enclaves" (or the like) but I didn't want to make the changes without checking first. --Roisterer 06:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Adding on from my earlier post, I have now created a very basic page on historical enclaves (which needs a greater description that my one liner). Hope this doesn't look too bad. --Roisterer 00:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SMOM

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is a sovereign entity that has full diplomatic relations with 93 sovereign states. It also exerts full sovereign authority over its HQ in Rome's via Condotti, which also constitutes its only territorial holding. This sovereign territory is entirely enclaved within the territory of the Italian republic, hence the listing within this article is valid. --Gene_poole 10:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This "territory" is only extraterritorial like any embassy. The host country can at any time legally sever diplomatic relations and thus end the extraterritoriality. Sovereign territory is territory that can not be legally taken away by another country like that. Gzornenplatz 10:36, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've protected the page because the last about a dozen edits have been nothing but reverting. I suggest that this be fleshed out somewhere like Talk:Knights Hospitaller and then come back here and do the change. --Joy [shallot] 11:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. More specifically about this article, the disputed section's intro says "Some enclaves are countries in their own rights [...] Three such sovereign countries exist". This is really nitpicking... but I can see how it can be a matter of controversy. The SMOM is definitely a sovereign entity, but to describe it as a country is exactly opposite from this line from its article: "The exact nature of the entity is somewhat nebulous and subject to controversy: it claims to be a traditional example of an entity, other than a country, that is sovereign". Presuming this line from that article isn't disputed, I think that we need to avoid listing it among the countries here, and instead make a new heading for it. --Joy [shallot] 11:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SMOM was once a "country" in the traditional sense (ie when it ruled Malta), and obviously continues to be treated as such by the countries with whom it maintains relations. The only reasonable approach is to list it here with a qualifying statement. There is no necessity to create an entirely separate article for a single anomalous entity. --Gene_poole 11:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where exactly did I propose creating an entirely separate article? I said "make a new heading". That's that little thing done with "== ==", you know... --Joy [shallot] 16:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apologies - I misread you. --Gene_poole 22:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you describe it as a "country" or a "sovereign entity" - the point relevant to this article is that it has no territory, therefore is not an enclave. Gzornenplatz 11:21, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

To state the obvious again: SMOM is nothing but an enclave.--Gene_poole 11:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It still bears some resemblence to the likes of the Holy See, I don't see why we shouldn't include it at the bottom with a suitable explanation. --Joy [shallot] 16:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The Vatican City has sovereign territory, the SMOM hasn't. And how can an entity without territory anywhere be an enclave? Gzornenplatz 16:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite see the backing up for this necessity of sovereignty (checked in dictionaries too), and also SMOM does seem to have a trivial bit of territory in its HQ. --Joy [shallot] 16:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The SMOM's "territory" is equivalent to an embassy. All embassies in the world would be enclaves then. But an enclave is one country's territory surrounded by another, and embassies are territory of the host country, they are only given extraterritoriality, which means they are, as a privilege by the host country, treated as if they were the territory of the other country. Gzornenplatz 16:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Their article states:

"Yet it is based in, and owns, territory in Rome, which is considered extraterritorial to Italy: if this were to be considered SMOM territory, it would be a country, while if it were considered as an embassy to Italy, it would be a sovereign organization."

So, both interpretations are possible, are they not?

(How do we know this unless Italy evicts them?) --Joy [shallot]

No, they aren't. Italy never ceded this territory. It treats it like any embassy. Any sufficiently detailed political map will show Vatican City as a separate state, but not SMOM. Vatican City is universally considered the state with the smallest area, not SMOM. Vatican City appears in any complete list of countries (including the various ones on Wikipedia), SMOM doesn't. Gzornenplatz 10:37, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you first amend those statements there then. If noone watching that page complains, then we can consider permanently de-listing SMOM from here. --Joy [shallot] 11:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The editor who objects to the inclusiuon of SMOM seems to have forgotten completely that this is an article about enclaves, not "sovereign states with enclaves". SMOM is an example of an anomalous historical entity that controls an enclave. The "status" of the enclave it controls is entirely irrelevant in the context of the article. The fact of its undoubted existence - and the fact that this represents a totally unique instance of such an enclave - is relevant, and should be included, and noted with appropriate qualifying statements.--Gene_poole 22:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Undoubted" in your mind, surely. Meanwhile the fact remains that the SMOM does not "control" any territory, therefore is not an enclave any more than any embassy is. Gzornenplatz 08:19, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

"Undoubted" as an objective, demonstrable, physical, contemporary reality. If you wish to argue that SMOM's via Condotti facility is a figment of the imagination please provide supporting citations.--Gene_poole 06:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You forgot to add "irrefutable" and "incontrovertible", not to mention "backed by numerous third-party references". The reality remains that the Via Condotti facility exists like any embassy exists, but those aren't enclaves. If you disagree, just show me one map which shows national boundaries around it like those shown on thousands of maps around Vatican City (which you claim to have the same status). Gzornenplatz 21:34, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with those who make positive assertions unsupported by observed and documented realities. In this case the positive assertion is that the via Condotti facility is, despite being surrounded entirely by Italy, and being under the sole sovereign administration of SMOM - an entity that is most cetainly not Italy - somehow, uniquely, not an enclave. I await citations that demonstrate why the interpretation of the term "enclave" that appears, on the basis of the above statements, to be embraced - uniquely - by the above editor, should replace all existing definitions.--Gene_poole 05:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Two textbook examples of logical fallacies in one sentence! In particular, "Gene Poole" commits the following fallacies: Straw man ("Gzornenplatz" never did state that SMOM is a figment of the imagination) and Argument from ignorance (If you can't prove X doesn't exist, it must exist!) Samboy 21:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk page comments should be limited to factual, accurate observations concerning the topic of discussion. Deliberate misrepresentations of the statements of other editors do not advance resolution of controversial subjects. --Gene_poole 05:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki Link

Just created a page for the same topic in Chinese Wikipedia. Since this page is locked, I'd like to ask anyone who has the power to alter the content, to help me to put this link in. zh:飛地 Thanks a lot!--SElefant 07:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Chuq 12:04, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic enclaves?

Should this article not have a section describing the status of embassies? It's always been my understanding that embassies are the sovereign territory of the country owning them, and are therefore enclaves within the host country. I'm not sure, maybe that's not strictly true, but it would be nice to have a mention of it.

I agree. A short mention, no need to list them all of course. --Golbez 23:45, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

===>Embassies, international territory: You are correct about the embassies. As I recall, the UN headqaurters in Vienna and Geneva are the same situation as New York City. There have also been international cities, such as Danzig, but none currently exist (it was proposed that Jerusalem be one prior to the establishment of the State of Israel). Kosovo is an international protectorate, but it's generally viewed as being under Serbian sovereignty. Also, the headquarters of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta are in the Vatican, itself an enclave in Italy. This doesn't constitute an enclave by some definitions, but it does by others. Justin (koavf) 01:24, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Embassies are not sovereign territory and therefore are not enclaves. Rather they are places that have Extraterritoriality, that is they are exempt from many of the laws of the host nation.

One: Sign your comments please, with ~~~~. Two, don't just delete the stuff, adapt it, extraterritoriality is a valid thing to mention here. I hadn't heard of it, and people were clearly confused on this front. --Golbez 21:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereigity vs. Ownership

A country may own land in another country (like Canada owning Vimy in France) but this does not mean that the land is sovereign territory of that country. Unless it is sovereign territory, it is not an Enclave. Removing areas on the list that are not sovereign territory. Shocktm 23:53, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baarle-Nassau

Can anyone help with this? On the maps, one sees that the fragments of Belgium, known as Baarle-Hertog, themselves contain pieces of Dutch territory (presumably Baarle-Nassau within Baarle-Hertog within Baarle-Nassau). There seem to be seven. So far so good.

The article also mentions Baarle-Nassau's "three enclaves in Belgian soil". Now, inasfar as these portions are Dutch, they're not Belgian soil. I assume the text means that they are surrounded by Belgian soil. Assuming that's what they are, I'm blowed if I can see three such areas on the various maps. Most intriguingly, the article mentions "a small [piece of Baarle-Nassau, the Dutch town] inside one the (sic) Belgian enclaves." What could this mean?

Does it mean that one of the pieces of the Netherlands surrounded by Belgium has, inside it, a piece of Belgium which encloses a piece of the Netherlands? Alternatively, does it mean that one of the pieces of Belgium in Baarle-Nassau has inside it a piece of the Netherlands which encloses a piece of Belgium? I can't see such a thing on the maps.

My reading suggests that there is a counter-counter clave, which would be worth standing in.

This page has a useful map: [2] --Golbez 20:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

yeah that map is great. It's hard to understand the geography unless one realise the size of the enclaves there are the size of street blocks and lots, thus it is usually not indicated on typical atlases. --Kvasir 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you check this page - [3] ? Jakro64 11:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piedmont, CA

I added Piedmont as an enclave of Oakland, CA, and Gellersen caught me repeating a piece of local lore that it was a secession *from* Oakland that created it. He is absolutely correct that I have no source for this. However, this is the primary local example from the Secession page. How should this be reconciled? Jonrock 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mistransmission? I've heard that Emeryville seceded from Oakland. —Tamfang 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The sentence is gramatically ambiguous, and even from reading the talk page, I'm not sure what it means.

 Piedmont, California incorporated in 1907 to avoid annexation by Oakland, and is now an enclave of it.

Should it as written below?

 Piedmont, California incorporated in 1907 to avoid annexation by Oakland, and is now an enclave of California.

Thanks! Don 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "is enclaved in Oakland"? —Tamfang 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess neither "in" nor "of" are descriptive; they both seem slightly ambiguous to me in retrospect. How about having it read, "... is now an enclave belonging to California, located in Oakland?" Don 00:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Misleadingly and unnecessarily implies that Oakland is somehow less a part of California than Piedmont is. Also literally wrong; the whole point is that Piedmont is not "in Oakland". Any objection to "enclaved by Oakland" or "surrounded by Oakland"? —Tamfang 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"... is now surrounded by Oakland as an exclave belonging to California." I think that works. If you agree, let me know and one of us can put it in. It is fair to say that Piedmont is an exclave belonging to CA, correct? Don 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Piedmont is not an exclave of anything, because it is not separated from the main body of its parent territory. Piedmont, Oakland, Newark and Fremont are subunits of the same entities: Alameda County, California, USA. What is "belonging to California" intended to signify? —Tamfang 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I was confused about something. Because of how I misread the sentence originally, I was under the impression that a different state or county was somehow involved and didn't get that idea out of my head until just now. I'm not sure how I cam to that understanding. Sorry, and thanks for your patience! Don 04:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caserma Ederle

US Military bases like Caserma Ederle are not part of Europe anymore. The territory is ceded to the US and administrated as part of one of the States. Italians could not enter in the Caserma nor the housing area. CapPixel 13:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not quite sure where you are getting your information that US military bases overseas are sovereign US territory. Most (if not all) are leased, not ceded. Mike Beidler 11:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This was addressed in the article on November 7, 2005 (Added Military Bases to Extraterritoriality section as their status resembles embassy more that ceded land) Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 15:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subnational enclaves

How thorough do we want to make this list? I know that just in Southern California, where I live, Signal Hill, California is completely surrounded by Long Beach, California, and Villa Park, California is completely surrounded by Orange, California. Universal City, California and San Fernando, California are both enclaves of Los Angeles, California. Finally, there is Beverly Hills, California and West Hollywood, California which are both completely surrounded by Los Angeles, California, except that the two cities also share a common border with each other, so I'm not sure you could call them enclaves.

My personal opinion is that for the purpose of the enclave article, the Submational enclaves section should probably be limited to states and similar entities, and exclude cities. ^BlankVerse 13:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, no one has seen anything yet! In Java (Indonesia) between 1750's and 1950's, there were Surakarta (sk) enclaves in the Yogyakarta (yk) province/sultanate/whatever, to the point that some villages were split in half by this. It was to provide lands for the Surakarta graveyard attendants/officials who were tending/minding/watching graveyards that were both Sk and Yk locations. The map (if I ever can find it and load it up) is graphic in the chaos that it represents. I would be intrigued to see what others might make of the situation. It was officially dissolved in the late 50's and lands reverted, but some official documents carried the distinction into the 1970's. vcxlor 15:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

I suggest that the articles enclave and exclave be merged into one another. Having two separate articles for these two sides of the same story makes as much sense as having separate articles for immigration and emigration - it's the same phenomenon, just described from opposing angles. Much like "here" is actually "there" if described from "there" and vice versa. Actually, the content of the immigration and emigration articles differs, while these two don't. Hm… Any thoughts? =I //Big Adamsky 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Vote

No - Mainly because these are two separate (however close) concepts. (Signed: J.Smith) 06:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes If the distinction is small enough then they should be on the same page, since:

1. there will be a lot of common points. Enclave had Featured article status removed because the practical and legal issues are not adequately discussed; these issues are similar in both cases.
2. the exact distinction between the 2 needs to be discussed. This should be done in one page rather than duplicated in two
3. a lot of the edit history is people adding examples to one page which belong on the other.
4. The enclave article discusses practical enclaves, coastal countries, coastal fragments, and subnational enclaves. Since there can also exist practical exclaves and subnational exclaves, and since coastal fragments are probably exclaves but not enclaves, it's all looking like an arbitrary division.
5. All the external linked sites discuss both terms together.

I think a single article exclave and enclave defining both terms in the intro, and then enumerating and distinguishing subtypes, would be more natural than trying to fence the two terms off. cf Acronym and initialism, weak form and strong form. Joestynes 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree totally, yes. --Golbez 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

YES. The majority of readers of this article will probably be looking for information on both topics. Keeping them seperate will involve to much artificial jumping around between articles--Captdoc 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) == Headline text ==--Captdoc 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I support the murger for several reasons:

1. Enclaves/Exclaves are linked topics - All Enclaves are by definition also exclaves.

FALSE. An enclave does not have to be an exclave of something else. It can simply be that the entirety of one territory is completely surrounded by another. (The opportunity to make this clear is probably a reason in favor of the merger.) Jonrock 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point! Touché! Why didn't I drive that home? =[ //Big Adamsky 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The Enclave article deals with exclaves already (see Costal Fragments section) and lists many of them.
2. That in the past six months I have made 2 dozen edits on these articles, many of which are due to users adding enclaves to the exclave article or vise versa.

The only issue I have with the merge is the size of the article. It is already long and more data will make it even longer. I have two suggestions:

1. Remove all the subnational entries. They do not add much value much less the article does not list all.
2. Use this page to define enclave/exclave/etc, and have a second page with a list of them. (like Country and List of Countries).

Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Overlap would remain heavy even if a precise distinction between the concepts were maintained. The first sentence of the merged article should contain definitions of both, and perhaps its title ought to be Enclave and Exclave (with two redirects). And yes, let's have a separate List page, but not excluding subnational. —Tamfang 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main entry at which -clave then?

Pending further proing & conning, I for one would like to propose retaining the enclave article while turning exclave into a redirect-page, for the reason so pointedly pointed out to us by Jonrock above. I would also like to incorporate wording in the intro to the effect that "in political geography an enclave is analogous to an island in physical geography" (compare the definition given for panhandle). Sound allright? //Big Adamsky 16:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Does anyone know what the geopolitical shape analogous to an isthmus would be called generically? I.e. a very narrow section of a state or other entity, such as the Indian "Chicken's Neck" or Israel's "Wasp waist". Thanks a bunch!

I still think enclave and exclave is the best name for the merged article. I don't know whether there is a generic term for "territorial isthmus", but in any case I don't see any value in systematically drawing such analogies. The island/enclave comparison doesn't really add to the understanding; just mentioning "island" in quotes in the exposition might help, anything more elaborate is overkill. What's the analogy for exclave? Joestynes 08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds grandiose. No, on the contrary, the "island" or "lake/hole" analogy does add a lot to a quick understanding of what defines an enclave or exclave, respectively. When I was nipper I found it useful to compare a shape defined by borders to a shape defined by a coastline. And I still do. =J //Big Adamsky 08:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was criticising your suggested phraseology ("in political geography an enclave is analogous to an island in physical geography") rather than the underlying analogy. When I was a nipper I wouldn't have understood "political geography", "analogous" or "physical geography", but I understood scare quotes. Do you mean "enclave and exclave" sounds grandiose? There is precedent (comments: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#"X and Y"). I do agree "enclave" is a better single-word name than "exclave". Joestynes 08:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to improve that and any other phrase. Yes, you understood me grandiosely. Scare quotes? //Big Adamsky 09:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A territorial "isthmus" is commonly called a corridor, because they're often created to protect access. —Tamfang 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Khachmaz

The article states there are two russian enclaves in the azeri rayon of Khachmaz. Has anyone got any reference backing this? — Poulpy 11:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

All I know about Azerbaijan is the extensive research I've done to create the maps, and not once have I heard anything about Russian enclaves. Armenian, but not in Khachmaz. --Golbez 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just googled for one of the names, and the only - ONLY - result was available in Google's cache, [4]. Is this a good ref? I don't know, but I do know that apa-az.info is now a dead site. --Golbez 18:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've checked this site, which provides scans of former USSR maps, especially this one, this other one and that one, but couldn't find any enclave. Still, it doesn't tell us anything about whether they exist or not. — Poulpy 16:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Island

The Long Island linked to is definitely *not* the correct Long Island. Being a (more or less) native Long Islander from New York, well, we're definitely not in the Boston Harbor.

That being said, a quick Google search indicated that there is a Long Island *in* Boston, but the wikipedia page doesn't exist. It's listed in Long Island (disambiguation) as Long Island (Boston).

I'm changing the link here to point to the same one as on the disambiguation page and modifying the text to indicate which Long Island it is. Cheers!

Ooops, forgot the sig on the last post. Anyway, thanks to Gellersen & Choess for setting up the new link. Don 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References?

This article is in dire need of sources. As an exemple, the sentence "[T]he Dhekalia Power Station also belongs to Cyprus although it's surrounded by British land and is even divided in two by a British road." might be true (I don't really doubt the claim), but is pretty hard to check (Cyprus maps — especially ones with the British sovereign base areas — aren't found easily). Since the page has evolved into a giant list of enclaves of all kinds, it may be useful to be able to back the assertions up. — Poulpy 09:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added the template Unreferenced to top of article. — Poulpy 14:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I feel that separate articles enclave and exclave is a deplorable fork. Loosely speaking, one man's enclave is another man's exclave. There is duplication - a quick check showed Appenzell and Geneva duplicated. The articles should be merged - which would make the (quite subtle) difference between the two words clearer in my view. The merge direction should be to enclave: checks on Google and Yahoo suggest that enclave is about 40 or 50 times more commonly used than exclave. -- RHaworth 12:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I doubt both articles are likely to take different paths in the future. — Poulpy 13:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)