Talk:Enclave and exclave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 29, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted July 14, 2004 Featured article review Kept December 25, 2004 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

Contents 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

[edit] fait accompli

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] merge

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)

[edit] Peculiar

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)

[edit] independence movements

Someone, possibly me, had written:

Many exclaves today have an independence movement, especially if the exclave is far away from the mainland.

68.91.114.193 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)

[edit] Islands

Do islands not count as exclaves? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Metonyme (talk • contribs) 09:11, 28 July 2006.

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)

[edit] Paraguay

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)

[edit] United States

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? 69.38.146.28 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)

[edit] Definition of Exclave:Denmark and Greenland

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)

[edit] 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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.3.133 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 November 2006.

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)

Heh, my dictionary illustrates exclave with Cabinda. —Tamfang 04:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the opposite of acronym and initialism, where 2 different words have gradually come to have the same meaning. jnestorius^(talk) 05:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How does the narrow definition exclude Nakhichevan? —Tamfang 19:36, 19 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):

Whyte, Brendan R. (2002, revised 2004). WAITING FOR THE ESQUIMO: An historical and documentary study of the Cooch Behar enclaves of India and Bangladesh. Melbourne: University of Melbourne (doctoral dissertation). ISBN 0-734-02208-5. 

Page 2 says: "The words exclave and enclave will be used as defined in the OED, but with the added proviso that each is surrounded by only one other dominion." jnestorius^(talk) 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)