Talk:Enclave

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?

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)

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

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] (http://vwww.abo.fi/users/rpalmber/enclaves.htm)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)