Talk:List of enclaves and exclaves

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Organization

I bashed this together out of Enclave and Exclave, removing repetitions. I fully expect disagreement with some of my classifications, so go to it! —Tamfang 05:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the bashing. Putting the lists in a separate article has been needed for some time. --Jonrock 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this list be a bit more interesting and useful if it was sorted by continent and country rather than "category"? Ebben 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hope this helps. —Tamfang (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winn Parish, Louisiana

This seems extremely dubious. Under one of the main legal theories employed at the time of the U.S. Civil War, secession is illegal, so Louisiana never seceded, and thus Winn Parish remained part of Louisiana along with the rest of the state. Under another of the main legal theories, states have the right to secede, as they are sovereign entities. Counties, however, do not, so Winn Parish, under this view, remains a part of the sovereign state of Louisiana, and joins the Confederacy with it. Note that the former theory was certainly under operation in counties in a similar situation - the northwestern counties of Virginia, which were, until 1863, recognized to be part of "Virginia," which was still in the union. I think this example should be removed. john k 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If pre-existing sovereign status is necessary to secession, the Declaration of Independence is void. I don't think any of the parties in 1861 would subscribe to such a theory, though Lincoln tried to have it both ways. —Tamfang 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caber Kalesi

Caber Kalesi (Fort Caber, pronounced Jaber) is a Turkish enclave within Syria. The monument is considered part of Turkey see: tr:Caber Kalesi Ybgursey 05:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the original treaty (in the very short provision dealing with this) that says that the land under the monument is sovereign Turkish territory. Hence, when the monument was moved to make way for Lake Assad, it is not very likely that a piece of Turkey was submerged by the lake.

Jeff in CA 15:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Northwest Angle

I'm wondering if the Northwest Angle would be considered an enclave? It is a part of Minnesota that is only accessible by the rest of the U.S. by going through Canada. I'm not sure if it is an enclave because it is also accessible by boat. Point Roberts, Washington is a similar situation. --66.130.0.153 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both are listed under "practical enclaves". —Tamfang 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it be considered an Inaccessible District? It is not on exclave/enclave because there is no break in the US territorial waters between the Northwest Angel and the mainland, so it technically still touches the US, but you most go through Canada to reach it by land.

No, Practical enclaves and exclaves means areas that are connect to the motherland (usually by water) but which road access goes through a second country. Inaccessible Districts are areas that are connect to the motherland (usually by land) but only easily accessible by going through a second country (See Hyder, AK as an example). It is a slight difference but does exist. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shocktm, can you put these definitions in the article? I didn't know what the distinction was until now. --Lasunncty 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand why it is called a pratical Exclave as opposed to an inaccessible district, but in the article it is stated that the Nortwest Angle is a penninsula, when it only has water on the south and east of it, the west is a border of Canadian land. The extreme southern portion of it could possibly be construed as a penninsula(even though it sticks out less then a mile into the water), but I don't think that qualifies the whole thing as a penninsula. Also, I am new to this editing and discussion thing on Wiki, if you could tell me how to post using atleast an "anonymous" tag with my IP address, i'd be very appreciative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.8.94.87 (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Too Many Examples!

It seems to me that it is not necessary to list every enclave/exclave that exists, no matter how insignificant. Perhaps we could limit the list to first- and second-level administrative divisions. --Lasunncty 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these lists are starting to cruft-ify. I note that enclaves-that-are-not-exclaves are, at the municipality level, very common, and perhaps these should be axed from the lists unless they're particularly notable. For example, Lesotho and San Marino are clearly notable. The status of a large and well-known enclave-but-not-exclave such as Beverly Hills, California as an enclave within Los Angeles, California is debatably notable enough for the list. But enclaves-that-are-not-exclaves such as Narberth, Pennsylvania within Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania (which, I confess, I added myself) would not make the cut under my proposed standard.

Exclaves are, to my mind, more interesting.Spikebrennan 22:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for what little it's worth, I agree with Spikebrennan and have no objection to pruning the little-cities-in-big-cities. —Tamfang 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the case, it could be useful to keep the information collected in a section called maybe "minor enclaves and exclaves". It would be a pity to throw away all that's been collected... --Adriano 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this supposed to be a list page? john k 15:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we keep the "minor" ones, perhaps we should sort the list according to the administrative level. (ie, "first-level subnational enclaves", etc.) Then at least the "major" ones would all be together for easy access. --Lasunncty 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree on that. john k 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might end up breaking this list into several sub-list articles, just for the sake of readability... — Poulpy 09:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical En/Exclaves and Inaccessible Districts

I have cleaned up the true en/exclave lists, but before I (or someone else) work on the final sections, I think we need clear definitions of the terms "Practical En/Exclaves" and "Inaccessible Districts." More importantly, are they real terms, or just "consolation prizes" for pieces of land that don't quite qualify above (in which case these sections could be deleted)? Finally, if an area is listed above, should it be listed below as well? --Lasunncty 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pene-enclave and pene-exclave are formal terms for these concepts, so I've modified the article to use them.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, these two terms have almost identical meanings. I propose combining these two sections (or removing them entirely) unless a clear definition of both terms can be provided. There has not been much action on this since I made my post here almost four years ago (!). --Lasunncty (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define pene en/exclave in the article or link to another Wiki article that does so.2607:FEA8:D5DF:F945:DC57:79F9:D1BD:E702 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations headquarters

This might be an extreme example, but the headquarters of the United Nations, located in New York City, is considered international territory, but is completely surrounded by the rest of the city. Anyone agree to adding this on the list? --Geopgeop 13:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The land on which the headquarters is built is still under soverignty of the United States ; its extraterritorial status doesn't differ from regular embassies. — Poulpy 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Campobello International Park

Does anyone know if Roosevelt Campobello International Park qualifies as an en/exclave?

I do not think it is. While both countries run the park, I doubt that Canadian sovereignty was given up when the park was started. (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 03:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone modify it: Rincón de Anchuras

Rincón de Anchuras is part of the spanish province of Ciudad Real, that is between the provinces of Toledo and Badajoz:

Note that this fact (also requested in Section 17 below) had been shown in the list at some time much prior to this date.

Jeff in CA 18:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Omaha Airport

Is Omaha, Nebraska Airport a sub-national en/exclave since it appears you need to go through Iowa to get there?

No it is not. You can get to the airport form the rest of Nebraska without going thru Carter Lake, Iowa - The most convenient way may be thru there, but it is not the only way. Carter Lake, Iowa is listed here under Subnational "practical" enclaves and exclaves. (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English/Scottish practical enclaves

Found a couple, as listed. Accessed via Multimap. Can anyone do a link? I haven't got a clue about computing, so Unsure how to do that. There also more 'practicals' in Wales, but I haven't got round to doing them. These are mainly farms near the Dee in North Wales. I think Scottish and Welsh enclaves are important for this article, as they are separate countries within the United Kingdom. There are plenty more in English and Scottish local government, too. RAYMI.

In the list of pene-exclaves and inaccessible districts, the following items, which were added quite some time ago, appear for Wales:

Wales:
- In Flintshire, on the Dee estuary, there are several bits of marshland that are separated from other bits of Wales.
- There is also a small area of land south of Wyastone Leys which is inaccessible from any other area of Wales directly by road, being separated by land and the River Wye.
- There are several small areas north of the village of Part-Y-Seal are inaccessible from Wales directly, these include one farm, two river banks and a small island in the River Wye.
- National rail services connecting north and south Wales must pass through England.

This seems like a reasonable sample to address what had been proposed for the "practicals" in Wales.

Jeff in CA 00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nike

Should the headquarters of Nike recieve any mention? They are completely surrounded by the Beaverton, Oregon, but remain outside the city. --Max Talk (add) 04:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that, after all this time, not receiving an answer constitutes the answer . Jeff in CA 18:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

San Ysidro, California

is not an exclave, but is connected to San Diego proper by a thin strip of territory in San Diego Bay. Deleting. Hmmm...I guess I should have pasted into the Practical section. Done.

San Ysidro and Imperial Beach are connected with the main body of the City of San Diego by a peninsula that has the Silver Strand (San Diego), the former Coronado Island/North Island, and the San Diego-Coronado Bridge over San Diego Bay. Coronado Island and North Island are no more because sand dredged from the bottom of the bay was used to enlarge tthem and to connected them with dry land via the peninsula to the south. The only question that remains is this one: Does the U.S. Navy's Naval Amphibious Base Coronado interrupt this connection? I doubt that it because there is a public highway across the base.47.215.183.159 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Enclaves

There are several municipal enclaves in western and central Pennsylvania:

Westmoreland County:

Ligonier Borough, surrounded completely by Ligonier Township

Laurel Mountain Borough, surrounded completely by Ligonier Township,

Seward Borough, surrounded completely by St. Clair Township

Cambria County:

Dale Borough, surrounded completely by Johnstown City (It is also part of a completely non-contiguous school district).

Ebensburg Borough, the County Seat, is completely surrounded by Cambria Township

Indiana County:

Indiana Borough, the County Seat, is completely surrounded by White Township

Armagh Borough, is surrounded completely by East Wheatfield Township.

These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure there are several dozen others.

I just checked and found only four counties, Union, Potter, Elk(?), Philadelphia County, where a municipality was not completely surrounded by another municipality. Most were boroughs surrounded by townships. Many, such as Indiana, Bedford, and Centre Counties have the majority of Boroughs completely surrounded by a single township.

There are also several townships that have non-contiguous territories, and one borough that I could find (White Oak Borough, Allegheny County).

I think it would be better if the entry just to say there are many municipal enclaves in Pennsylvania. Perhaps someone ambitious could add them to the individual municipality lists. They are certainly not limited to the southeastern part of the state.

--J. J. in PA 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list article that was created fairly recently, List of enclaves in Pennsylvania. There are at least 338!

Jeff in CA 02:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Argentine/ Chilean Antarctic Territories.

These two countries regard their (otherwise unrecognized) territories as PROVINCES of their respective nations, rather than outlying territories. Despite the fact that these are unrecognized by any other nation, these, I believe should be listed in the exclave section, with an accompanying note. I am aware of all other nations' Antarctic claims, these differ in an EXCLAVE sense, as they are not 'provinces', but overseas territories, in the respective opinions of other claimants. The aforementioned South American nations' governments regard their claimed Antarctic to be inherent parts of their states. I am also aware they overlap......... RAYMI 80.68.39.212 10:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French overseas departments

Shocktm has stated that "Island do not count as exclaves unless they are in the territorial water of another country." It seems to me that this would only preclude them from being enclaves, but they could still be exclaves. My thinking on adding Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion was that their territorial waters were not contiguous with the rest of France. The same is true for French Guiana. I wanted to get consensus before I made any additional changes. --Lasunncty 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Island by there very nature are exclaves and general are not listed. Many countries have islands that are outside of the 12 nm Territorial waters limit or even outside the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone limit. If you just count the entities outside the EEZ limit you would need to add Hawaii, Easter Island, Canaries, Azores, Bornholm, Galapagos, etc. - at least two dozen places by my quick counting. Figuring out all of them would be difficult (one would have to place a standard, which is always debatable) and could be considered WP:OR as I do not see a list out there that lists them. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islands by their very nature, in general, are neither enclaves nor exclaves. An enclave is a territory entirely surrounded by another territory. An exclave is a territory legally or politically attached to a main territory with which it is not physically contiguous because of surrounding alien territory. Therefore, the exception for an island would be, as stated above, an island surrounded entirely by the territorial water of another country (example: Malawi islands). None of the cited examples (Hawaii, Easter Island, Canaries, Azores, Bornholm, Galapagos) is surrounded entirely by the territorial water of another country. On the contrary, they are surrounded entirely by their own territorial water. (Note that islands divided between two or more sovereign entities are pene-exclaves.) Jeff in CA 16:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Put another way, in answer to Lasunncty, for these cases to be exclaves, their territorial waters would need to be completely surrounded by the territorial waters of one or more other countries, rather than international waters. Jeff in CA 18:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anchuras, Spain

You have other here:

[3]

Anchuras is part of the spanish province of Ciudad Real (At its northwest), situated between the provinces of Badajoz and Toledo.

Note that this fact (also requested in Section 9 above) had been shown in the list at some time much prior to this date.

Jeff in CA 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Subnational enclaves which are not exclaves | Louisville, Kentucky

This section is now disproportionately long. Any objection to trimming it to simply read:

In Kentucky, when the governments of Louisville and Jefferson County merged in 2003, a bewildering array of enclaves was created, as all other incorporated cities in Jefferson County retained their status as separate cities (reference)

Spikebrennan 17:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, as we have already been spared this type of lengthy detail that could have been provided for a few other states, such as Pennsylvania, seemingly for as long as this list has existed.

Jeff in CA 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I pared down the list of municipalities that are either enclaves or parts of composite enclaves. There were 71 such places listed before, and now there are 25 cities that remain listed on the main page among the enclave descriptions for the Louisville Metro and "balance" areas. As before, there are still 16 individual enclaves and 3 composite enclaves listed on the main page. The following information was removed for the third composite enclave, consisting of 51 municipalities.

These 51 municipalities form a large composite enclave within the Louisville/Jefferson County metro "balance":

Norbourne Estates, Richlawn, St. Matthews, Woodland Hills, Middletown, Anchorage, Bancroft, Barbourmeade, Beechwood Village, Bellemeade, Bellewood, Blue Ridge Manor, Briarwood, Broeck Pointe, Brownsboro Farm, Brownsboro Village, Crossgate, Douglass Hills, Druid Hills, Forest Hills, Glenview, Glenview Manor, Goose Creek, Graymoor-Devondale, Jeffersontown, Hurstbourne, Hurstbourne Acres, Indian Hills, Langdon Place, Lyndon, Manor Creek, Maryhill Estates, Meadow Vale, Meadowbrook Farm, Mockingbird Valley, Moorland, Murray Hill, Northfield, Norwood, Old Brownsboro Place, Plantation, Riverwood, Rolling Fields, Rolling Hills, Spring Valley, Sycamore, Ten Broeck, Westwood, Wildwood, Windy Hills, and Woodlawn Park.

Jeff in CA 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prasat Preah Vihear

In "Inaccessible Districts" Cambodia's Prasat Preah Vihear should be included. It can only be approached through Thailand. The World Court disallowed Thailand's claim in 1957. Thailand was so sure it would win the case that it allowed ownership go to arbitration rather than remain as disputed territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.71.55 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added as of this date. Jeff in CA 19:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Saint Pierre and Miquelon

The French islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon were in Newfoundland waters until 1949 and since then in Canadian waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.136.71.55 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that is because Newfoundland became a part of the dominion of Canada in 1949. The corridor of French water that extends southward of Saint Pierre and Miquelon is, of course, excepted from the above statement.

Jeff in CA 04:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Marble Hill, Manhattan

A section of the New York City, NY, USA Borough of Manhattan (and, thus New York County), that was separated from the island by the construction of a canal, and later joined with the Bronx Peninsula. Now even though it is physically attached to the Bronx and uses the Bronx' divisions of the NYPD and FDNY and has a Bronx area code and postal Zip code, it is still, technically, considered part of Manhattan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.237.135 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practical enclaves and waterways

It might be pointed out that the German city of Konstanz to the south of the Rhine has no "land" border with any part of Germany, being surrounded by Switzerland; it is linked to the rest of Germany by a bridge; the same applies mutatis mutandis to the Swiss town of Stein am Rhein which only has a bridge connecting it to the rest of Switzerland, being otherwise surrounded by Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.176.244 (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be pointed out that the sections of the rivers that they border are internal waters of their own country. Therefore one need not travel through a different country's territory or waters to reach them.

Jeff in CA 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Strange that I should return to my comment above after five years and find that someone has commented on it just a few hours earlier. I take the point entirely; but entities like this are germane to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.131.149 (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local enclaves and exclaves

The listing of enclaves and exclaves (and especially pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves) at a subnational level has gotten out of hand. There are too many of these for Wikipedia to have an exhaustive list. I think I could find half a dozen more just in Los Angeles County. The Kentucky Bend is notable. Nothing else within the USA rates inclusion in this article, save broad statements about Indian reservations and such. Randall Bart Talk 06:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubrovnik

Dubrovnik is listed as both an enclave and pene-enclave. It can be argued whether it is a proper pene-enclave or not, but it is obvious - even from the text of its "enclave" listing - that it is not an enclave. (It borders two foreign states and a sea.) So I'm removing it from the enclave list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan

Need local expert to check Qal'acha and Khalmion. I don't know which is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Trovato (talk • contribs) 19:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Khalmion link in this article is unreliable and probably wrong, as it describes it as an Uzbek enclave inside Kyrgyzstan north of Sokh. The latitude and longitude given in this article place Khalmion about 30 miles east of Sokh. Bradt Travel Guide to Kyrgyzstan gives Dzhangail as the Uzbek enclave at this latitude and longitude. In Google Earth, both Dzangail and Kalmion point to nearly the same place. This is either an error or two different names for the same place. In all independent sources on the Internet (in Russian), Khalmion is characterized as a Kyrgyz village, not an Uzbek enclave: see, e.g., here and here. (This information is thanks to Skinsmoke)

Qal'acha or Kalacha is correct. Action: changed "Khalmion" to "Dzhangail." Jeff in CA 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I researched this further. Qalacha is the correct reference to the Uzbek enclave that is north of Sokh. According to the GEOnet place names server, there are two villages in this small enclave: Chon-Kara at the south end (40°13′56″N 71°02′07″E / 40.23222°N 71.03528°E) and Qalacha at the north end. So references to this enclave as Chon-Kara are also correct. But according to the GEOnet server, Kalacha and Chong-Kara are two other, different places altogether, located outside of this enclave. The location of the Uzbek town of Kalacha is within the enclave of Sokh. The location of the Kyrgyz town of Chong-Kara is 2 km northwest of the Uzbek Chon-Kara enclave. So it would appear that "Qalacha" is the correct name for the enclave, but "Kalacha" is not. Jeff in CA 14:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Chalet des Prés

Chalet des prés is listed in the inacessible districts section. However I cannot find any reference regarding these two buildings. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman wiki (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also can find no reference to "Chalet" des Prés, other than ski lodges and restaurants. However, there are the communes of Château-des-Prés and Chaux-des-Prés in the Jura department in Franche-Comté in eastern France. Neither is an ex/enclave or inaccessible district.

Jeff in CA 18:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I finally found some information. "Chalet des Prés" consists of 2 adjacent buildings, one in France and one in Switzerland, that are accessible by road only from France. They appear to be dwellings that are at the end of an access road named "Lieu-dit Chalet des Prés." Their location is at 46°50′15.94″N 6°26′52.33″E / 46.8377611°N 6.4478694°E.

The Yahoo group, Borderpoint, had a discussion on this in 2007, which is found at http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/borderpoint/conversations/topics/1293, and there is an image at http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/borderpoint/files (click on "chalet des pres.jpg").

The house in Switzerland is within >>> Vaud District >>> Jura-Nord Vaudois >>> Sainte-Croix. The other house in France is within >>> Franche-Comte >>> Doubs >>> Les Fourgs.

Links for Google and Bing: http://goo.gl/maps/57odI and http://binged.it/16fVcuh

However, I would not call the house in Switzerland an inaccessible place. There is a Swiss road about 100 meters away, from which it appears to be an easy walk across a field to the house. So one certainly does not have to leave Switzerland to arrive at or to enter the house.

Jeff in CA 07:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Northern Ireland and other places

Could northern ireland be considered an exclave of the UK? And if not, why on earth not? Speaking of which, what about the Argentinian part of Tierra del Fuego? Or Kaliningrad Oblast - I know this is mentioned in the article, but shouldn't it just be an exclave that's not an enclave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlay (talk • contribs) 12:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland, Tierra del Fuego (Argentine) and Kaliningrad Oblast are all pene-exclaves, as they border the sea, and that sea comprises their own territorial waters (i.e., not surrounded by other nations' territiorial waters). Alaska is the largest pene-exclave in the world. Because they border a sea of their own territorial waters instead of a land border with another country, they are not true exclaves. Still, one cannot travel to them on land without going through another country.

Jeff in CA 04:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

'claves in fiction

Would a section on fictional 'claves be worthwhile? I have in mind Passport to Pimlico and The Diamond Age. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narvik

"Close to Narvik in Norway, a road enters Swedish territory. It does not connect with any other Swedish road before it enters Norwegian land once more."

Since the road is linked with other Norwegian roads, this seems more like a territorial dispute to me... KingM (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you evidence that Norway claims the land around the road? If not, it's not a dispute. —Tamfang (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of such a dispute. After all there are no border checkpoints between Norway and Sweden so it really does not matter. As a matter of fact there was once a small Swedish village (I do not remember the name) which was only accessable from the Norwegian side of the border. It was the only place in Sweden where road traffic at that time flow on the right side. I think it was connected with the Swedish road network shortly before the switch-over to right-side driving in 1967. But they did not have to make two switch-overs. --Muniswede (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Island and Ellis Island

By the definiton provided in the lede of this article both Liberty and Ellis Island are exclaves/enclaves of NY in NJ. Are they somehow different from the 1st entry on the page? (below) One is surrouned by territorial waters, while the other surrounded by territorial land. As now written it would be correct, or is there some aspect that would make the statement untrue?

Argentina — Isla Martín García (34°11′S 58°16′W / 34.183°S 58.267°W / -34.183; -58.267) is surrounded by Uruguayan territorial waters in the Río de la Plata. In addition, the Argentine islands of Apipé (27°30′S 56°54′W / 27.500°S 56.900°W / -27.500; -56.900) and Entre Ríos are surrounded by Paraguayan territorial waters in the Paraná River, as are some small islets.

No, they do not differ from this or any other entry on the list. You notice that in this entry for example, It does not begin with "Argentina-Uruguay/Paraguay" or something similar. The pieces of land here belong to Argentina, so only Argentina is used for the beginning of this entry. In the same way, Liberty Island and the original portion of Ellis Island belong to New York, so only New York was listed. The description that follows is where the rest of the information gets placed. By rewording the entire entry, you have removed the link with the map and the information about the counties (higher-level administrative divisions than cities). If you want to add the information about the cities, that is fine, but do not remove the other information that is already there. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

There are three pene-exclaves of Russian territory which can be accessed only via the Lithuanian town of Vištytis. The border is officially undemarcated, and there are proposals to change the boundaries around this area.

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=54.4475861&lon=22.7102852&z=13&l=24&m=h - there are no exclaves at all, also no talks about boundary change. So, I think this sentence can be deleted. User:Jaspis from lt.wikimapia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.100.205.18 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence was added on 15 Feb 2007 by user:80.68.39.212 (talk), citing www.geosite.jankrogh.com. After a quick search of the site, I found this page which I suppose could be out of date by now. Is there any way for someone to verify it or show that the border has been moved? --Lasunncty (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The border was indeed moved in 2003 under a 1997 treaty. Between 1991 and 2003, Russia had three tiny pene-exclaves on tips of the lakeshore that bordered the Lithuanian side of Lake Vištytis. Before a new border treaty went into force on 12 August 2003, the border ran along most of the waterline of the beaches on the Lithuanian side, so anyone paddling in the water was technically crossing into Russia. I have placed this in the Historic Enclaves section.

Jeff in CA 18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Embassies are not temporary exclaves

They're extraterritorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.197.211 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The meandering Muddy

I'm scrolling through topo maps of the Mississippi (on mapper.acme.com) looking for places anomalies in State boundaries. The northernmost one I've found is in Madison County, Illinois, just above the Missouri confluence. Dunno if that's worth mentioning. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The northernmost inhabited example is Kaskaskia, Illinois. —Tamfang (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay

where would Gitmo fit in the definision of enclave/exclave if at all? Its seems to be an extra territory, but I have seen some maps reference it like an enclave like Alaska. Need some clarification, and were would other overseas territories/claims of the USA and other nations fit?--71.236.0.245 (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. It's a "perpetual lease". Cuba remains the theoretical sovereign, though US has jurisdiction. —Tamfang (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Isle, Louisiana

Would Grand Isle be considered an exclave of Jefferson Parish? Grand Isle is located across Barataria Bay, which I'm guessing would be considered to be state waters. The only access to Grand Isle via land is through Lafourche Parish. Gregdanielsonjr (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS topo map doesn't show a hole in the county, and I've never heard of a piece of a State (other than Alaska) that isn't jurisdictionally part of some county. —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, county-equivalent. —Tamfang (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would arguably be one, although the state waters thing is questionable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the "theory of bridges" discussed in Section 42 below, Grand Isle would be a pene-exclave of Jefferson Parish. Jeff in CA 18:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of enclave and exclave

The definitions need to be improved. There is no minimum or maximum size for an enclave or exclave. If the definition is met that is all that is needed. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size has nothing to do with it. Do you have proof that these villages are not part of the TRNC? That's what an enclave would need. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are ethnically not a part of the TRNC. Moreover, the "exclave" is politically connected to the Republic of Cyprus (by voting) and by funding. The TRNC does not fund the schools in Rizokarpasso. Nor did it pay for the electricity for Rizokarpasso (for the majority of the time since 1974). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity has little to do with modern states. In addition, voting does not make something an exclave, neither do political connections or funding. Embassies are run through the politics of foreign governments, but they are not exclaves. An exclave is a defined area which is jurisdictionally part of a territory it is not connected to, such as the Cypriot towns in Dhekelia. These greek villages are not exclaves by any POV, the TRNC considers them to be full parts of the state, even if the inhabitants are not granted full citizen rights. Cyprus considers them to be a full part of Cyprus, along with the whole TRNC, and therefore not exclaves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not enclaved or exclaved ... why are they called "The Enclaved". That is what they have been known as since 1974. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it's a poetic term based on the idea of an enclave, as an analogy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea

Yeonpyeong Island is 12 km or 7.5 miles from the North Korean coast, and Baengnyeong Island is 17 km or 10.5 away, putting both of them within North Korean territorial waters (22 km or 12 miles). Both are very far removed from Ongjin County, Incheon, South Korea, the subdivision that they are a part of. Would they be considered exclaves for the sake of the article? --74.103.150.125 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Jeff in CA 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Further elaboration -

As shown by figures in the Wikipedia articles that are linked in your statement, the maritime borders are disputed. The Northern Limit Line (NLL) was imposed in 1953 by the UN Forces Commander following the end of military hostilities of the Korean War. It placed the islands completely within South Korean waters. Two decades later, the DPRK claimed a sea borderline substantially different from the NLL. It allocated more maritime territory to the North, but it also continued to recognize South Korean control of these islands as required in the armistice agreement. To accommodate South Korea's sovereignty, the DPRK-Claimed Sea Borderline carved out two narrow water pathways to the islands for South Korean vessels (similar to the St. Pierre & Miquelon corridor). Thus, under either of the two scenarios, the South Korean islands are not enclaved within North Korean waters.

Jeff in CA 08:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sławków

In Poland, Sławków is an exclave of Będzin County on the border between Lesser Poland Voivodeship and Silesian Voivodeship, to which it administratively belongs.

Eh? Sławków is part of Silesia administratively but not in some other sense? —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From elsewhere on Wikipedia:

"The town of Sławków, which became part of Będzin County in 2002 when it was transferred from Lesser Poland Voivodeship to Silesian Voivodeship, forms an exclave. It is separated from the rest of the county by the cities of Dąbrowa Górnicza and Sosnowiec."

Będzin County is one of 36 cities/counties in Silesian Voivodeship. Rybnicki County also appears to be split into three parts, assuming that the city of Rybnik is not part of Rybnicki County (as it appears not by inspection of http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/%C5%9Al%C4%85skie_administracja.png). The three parts are the municipalities of Czerwionka-Leszczyny, Świerklany, and the combined area of Lyski, Gaszowice and Jejkowice.

Jeff in CA 18:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Siheung

New entry needing clarification:

Siheung County - After the independence of Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Gwacheon, Gunpo, Uiwang, Ansan, Siheung was enclave. Abolish of Siheung County, the enclave was dissolved.

Was Siheung a county enclaved by another county? If so, what other county? With abolition, was Siheung merged into the surrounding county, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siheung County, South Korea, was an enclave within Gyeonggi Province. In 1986, the incorporated cities of Anyang, Gwacheon, and Ansan were formed from Hwaseong County. In 1989, the old county of Siheung was divided into the cities of Gunpo, Uiwang, and Siheung, thereby dissolving the enclave.

Jeff in CA 03:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

New England fairgrounds

Added June 12:

- In West Springfield, Massachusetts, there are 5 exclaves of the other New England States (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) for the Avenue of the States portion of the Big E fairgrounds. This is part of the 6 State Fair which all New England states contribute. The land underneath each of the buildings representing the states belongs to the state in question. You can walk to each of the six state buildings and purchase, among other things, lottery tickets from each state.

As in some other cases, the question must be raised: do the other states have jurisdiction over these patches, or only property rights? The latter seems more likely, so I'll remove it pending documentation. —Tamfang (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Big E, the other states do police these patches during the fair. I've rewritten the paragraph rather than remove it. —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are definitely not enclaves; at best, they are fantasy exclaves. If one were to consider these as exclaves, then analogously, on presidential inauguration days in Washington D.C., Pennsylvania Avenue would consist of exclaves of about 10 different states. You could even extend this concept to college football games where the coach of an opposing out-of-state team is accompanied by members of the state police of that school's state; the sideline area of one team would be an exclave (and an enclave). Jeff in CA 15:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Krasnogorsk/Moscow

Moscow region: there is a small part of Krasnogorsk region addressed at 65–66 km MKAD, outer side which is used to base administrative center and regional court. This exclave doesn't have access to river even the Moscow river is here.

Can someone rewrite this in English? —Tamfang (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I believe it means:

"There is a small exclave of the Krasnogorsk administrative district located at the 65-km mark outside of the 137-km Moscow Ring Road (Moskovskaya Koltsevaya Avtomobilnaya Doroga or MKAD), within which the administrative center and regional court are located. This area lacks access to the nearby Moscow River."

I have replaced the article text with this re-statement. However, I have not confirmed its veracity.

Jeff in CA 17:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Undivided Islands as "Subnational pene-enclaves/exclaves and inaccessible districts"

Islands by their very nature, in general, are neither enclaves nor exclaves. An enclave is a territory entirely surrounded by another territory. An exclave is a territory legally or politically attached to a main territory with which it is not physically contiguous because of surrounding alien territory. Therefore, the exception for an island would be one that is surrounded entirely by the territorial water of another country (example: Lake Malawi islands). The concept of territorial waters appears to exist only at the national level. For example, the coastal waters of the United States are U.S. territorial waters, not California waters, Oregon waters, Louisiana waters.

It is noted, however, that islands that are divided between two or more co-equal entities may be pene-exclaves. Also, note that an island that is connected to a main land area by a bridge or subway is, ipso facto, not inaccessible. Such a connection is not a natural isthmus (a distinguishing characteristic). Based on this, there is a problem with placing undivided islands within the category of "Subnational pene-enclaves/exclaves and inaccessible districts." To wit:

"Ganghwa Island is administered by Incheon, but is connected by bridges to Gyeonggi Province."

"Yeongjong Island, where Incheon International Airport is located, is administered by Jung-gu, but is connected by bridge to Seo-gu."

"small areas north of the village of Part-Y-Seal are inaccessible from Wales directly, these include ... a small island in the River Wye."

"Long Island, situated in Boston Harbor, is part of the City of Boston (Suffolk County) yet remains accessible by road only from Quincy (Norfolk County)" ... "over a 3,050-foot (930 m) two-lane steel bridge from Moon Island to Long Island."

"Riker's Island, the jail complex of the City of New York, is considered to be in the borough of The Bronx, but is only accessible via the Riker's Island Bridge, which terminates in the Borough of Queens."

"Roosevelt Island in New York City is part of the Borough of Manhattan, but is accessible by bridge only from the Borough of Queens. (A tramway and subway connect it to Manhattan, the subway to Queens as well.)"

"Theodore Roosevelt Island in the Potomac River is part of Washington, D.C., but only accessible by a footbridge from Virginia."

I propose the removal of all of the above from the section, "Subnational pene-enclaves/exclaves and inaccessible districts." Jeff in CA 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that most islands are not true en/exclaves, with situations like the Lake Malawi islands being the main exception. I disagree, however, with your ideas about pene-en/exclaves with regards to islands. The point is that you must go through another country to reach the territory in question. Take St Martin/Maarten for example: You don't have to go through the Dutch side first to reach the French side, and neither do you have to go through the French side first to reach the Dutch side. For the examples of the islands with bridges you bring up, you do in fact have to go through another territory to reach the island, at least by car/foot. --Lasunncty (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken. However, I don't know why you brought up the divided island of St. Martin/Sint Maarten. Each part of that island is indeed a pene-exclave, as each part is an integral municipality of France or the Netherlands and each borders another country (each other). But I specifically mentioned undivided islands. The "examples of islands with bridges" is the topic of this section.

Jeff in CA 10:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

For qualifying islands with bridges to them, I will concede that "you do in fact have to go through another territory to reach the island, at least by [land]." By this definition, Roosevelt Island in the Borough of Manhattan does not qualify. It can be reached by land from Manhattan via the subway/tramway (which certainly constitutes land access, as with a tunnel, even more concretely than a bridge can be considered to be land access).

Philosophically, I consider borders, although man-made, to be more permanent than man-made structures, and I continue to object to the idea that by constructing a bridge or a tunnel to an island, one can transform the island into a pene-exclave of the municipality to which it belongs. (Also, because the island is thus connected to a separate municipality, it must no longer be considered inaccessible.)

Jeff in CA 18:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't be upset if the whole section of pene-en/exclaves and inaccessible districts were removed. It's like an "almost" or "similar to" category that just adds confusion and clutter. --Lasunncty (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

Although "Akureyri municipality now controls the islands of Hrísey (as of 2004) and Grímsey (as of 2009)," and "although these two islands are roughly 35 km and 95 km from the city," they are in no way enclaves, exclaves, pene-enclaves or pene-exclaves. They are merely distant islands and therefore inaccessible. But so are thousands of islands around the globe that are not listed here.

Similar to Hrísey and Grímsey, other divisions of Iceland control the islands of Heimaey, Hjörsey, Brokey, Flatey in Skjálfandi, Flatey in Breiðafjörður, Æðey, Málmey, Papey, Viðey, Surtsey, Vigur, Elliðaey, Bjarnarey, Engey, Álsey, Langey, Suðurey, Drangey, Eldey, Hellisey, Kolbeinsey, Geirfuglasker, Hvalbakur, Lundey, Brandur, Súlnasker, Geldungur, Hani, Hæna, Hrauney and Grasleysa, although these islands too are away from their main divisions.

Similar examples in other countries:

Hawaii controls 132 islands in the Hawaiian Chain.
Alaska controls the Aleutian Islands and Little Diomede Island.
Florida controls the Keys and the Dry Tortugas.
North Carolina controls the Outer Banks.
Massachusetts controls Martha's Vineyard.
Washington state controls the San Juan Islands.
California controls the Catalina Islands and the Farallons.
Chile controls Easter Island.
Ecuador controls the Galapagos.
Australia controls Tasmania.
France and the Kingdom of the Netherlands control undivided islands in the Caribbean that are integral French and Dutch municipalities.
Denmark controls Greenland and the Faeroes.
Greece controls hundreds of Mediterranean islands.

Are any of these islands pene-exclaves? The answer is NO. If Hrísey and Grímsey qualify, then we also need to list all these and many, many, many more. (Hey, Indonesia!)

Jeff in CA 08:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Surrounding subdivisions

Lasunncty is absolutely correct in pointing out in an edit that the following enclaves are not enclaved by the subdivisions that surround them, and, therefore, those subdivisions should not be listed in the "Enclaved by" column. However, so that this information is not lost, I have stowed it here.

Enclave	Enclaved by	Surrounding subdivisions
Artchvašen (Bashkend)	Azerbaijan	Tovuz and Gadabay Districts
Roetgener Wald	Belgium (Liège province)	Raeren and Eupen municipalities
Mützenich	Belgium (Liège province)	Eupen and Waimes municipalities
Ruitzhof	Belgium (Liège province)	Waimes and Bütgenbach municipalities

Jeff in CA 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haskell Free Library and Opera House

The list includes as a practical exclave the following:

The Haskell Free Library and Opera House is located on the line between the United States and Canada; the library is physically located in Stanstead, Quebec in Canada, but the front door to the building exits onto Caswell Avenue in Derby Line, Vermont in the United States. A special exception allows Canadians and Americans to cross the border in order to use the building's facilities, but they must return back to their home country (or see the Customs office) to avoid being charged with illegally entering the other country.

How does this meet any definition of practical exclave or inaccessible district? This seems to be a curiosity more than anything else. I propose removal.

Jeff in CA 17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Because though it is in Canada, one cannot enter without going through US territory. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. The building has no other doors?

Jeff in CA 02:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

They apparently keep the back door locked. I haven't been there, though... perhaps we should ask a local? --Lasunncty (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I asked a local -- the library itself, or rather the person who updates their Facebook page. First I searched Flickr for photos to see all sides of the building. In addition to the doors on the front side in the U.S., there appear to be three exits from the second floor (two old traditional second-floor fire escapes and a newer structure on the Canadian side that is an enclosed stairwell to the second floor). There also appears to be a plain un-windowed door on the ground floor on the Canadian part of the east side. It's safe to say that it is not used for normal access; perhaps it is normally locked from the outside for maintenance or storage. So it seems clear that the public, aside from unlawful breaking and entering, indeed can only enter the building from the U.S. side. Here is the Haskell Free Library's Facebook reply:

Me: "Can people enter and exit via a door to the enclosed stairwell on the Canadian side that goes to the second floor?"

Like · · 19 hours ago

Haskell Free Library "No, that is an emergency exit for the opera house only."

Therefore, the Canadian part of the building may be considered a practical exclave of Canada, as people in Canada cannot enter the building except by travelling into the U.S. I suppose they could exit directly to Canada in the event of an emergency evacuation.

What's that old saying? "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle."

Jeff in CA 16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

quadripoints

Is there a convention on whether areas connected by quadripoints are considered en/exclaves or not? For example, Jungholz is listed under both "Enclaves which are also exclaves" and "Pene-enclaves/exclaves and inaccessible districts". --Lasunncty (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. Certainly one should consult at a minimum both Whyte and Vinokurov, as well as engaging others in discussion here or at the Enclave and exclave Talk page to help arrive at a decision, if one is desired.

Jeff in CA 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

could not verify

There were two sets of subnational en/exclaves listed which I could not verify:

The Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a condominium that belongs to both the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska; it surrounds two uninhabited enclaves belonging to the Federation. Those two uninhabited enclaves are very small, and there is even a possibility that they are on a mine field.^[a] Because of the joint administration of Brčko, they may be considered semi-exclaves of the Federation.
In Sweden, at least eleven municipal exclaves are also exclaves of the first subnational, county, level:
- Halland County has three very tiny exclaves in Jönköping County.
- Jönköping County has one exclave in Halland County.
- Jönköping County has two exclaves in Västra Götaland County.
- Västra Götaland county has one second degree exclave inside one of the two Jönköping County exclaves.
- Uppsala County has one exclave in Västmanland County.
- Jämtland County has two exclaves in Gävleborg County.
- Västerbotten County has one exclave in Norrbotten County.

I have removed them from the list for now, but if someone can find a reliable source, we can add them in again. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the only reference to the Brcko supposed enclaves that I can find. (I wrote the reply to Alex from Belgrade, Serbia, asking for more detail – none was forthcoming). http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/borderpoint/conversations/topics/8149 I would not call this by itself a reliable source, unless we can confirm it from another source.

Jeff in CA 21:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Lasunncty, thank you for the great work you did on the first-level subnational enclaves table. I reviewed it, and I have a few questions for you that I am wondering about.

A. With regard to Bremen:

a. In the Name column, does central Bremen refer to -

1. the central part of Bremen state (i.e., Bremen City), or

2. the central part of Bremen City within Bremen City?

b. Do central Bremen in the Name column and part of Bremen in the Notes column refer to the same thing?

c. What type of subdivision is Nord?

B. Are these several of the changes that you made in order to correct the older version?

a. the spelling of Absheron

b. the number of Ethiopian parcels is now 3 (was 2)

c. the number of Petilla de Aragón parcels is now 2 (was 1)

C. The exclaves of Tuscany and Vaduz (in Plancken) and the one named Machikhino appeared here upon your creation of the table. So I presume that in your research you found that they had not been included before. Yes?

D. For the Vostochny district,

a. do these 4 parcels comprise that entire district?

b. what do you think the phrase in the old version, "(an exclave of the Eastern Administrative Okrug, which has an exclave-enclave of its own)," refers to?

E. Are Surpierre and Vuissens (shown in the older version) the names of the 2 parcels belonging to the Canton of Fribourg (Broye District)?

F. For Münchenwiler, Laupen district appears to have been incorrect, as the list now says that it is part of Mittelland. True?

G. For Navarre, what is or was Baztanes? Should Baztanes be in a different category?

I would appreciate your sharing your thoughts.

Jeff in CA 21:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You may have already figured some of these out, but here are my answers:

A. Bremen

a. I mean the main part of Bremen City, excluding the part attached to Bremerhaven.

b. No, the "part of Bremen" is the portion of the city not included in "central Bremen".

c. The German term for this subdivision is "Stadtbezirk". It is between "Stadt" (Bremerhaven) and "Stadtteil" (Leherheide).

B. Differences from previous version

a. Not a correction, just simplification. I don't mind if you change it back.

b. Two parcels are separated by only a small distance and were mistaken as one.

c. Petilla de Aragón has two parcels, one of which is Bastanes.

C. Yes for all of these.

D. Vostochny

a. Yes, it is separated into four parcels, none of which are contiguous with the rest of Moscow.

b. At the time, it had appeared that Vostochny was only separated into two parcels (hence only "an" exclave), but more detailed maps show all four. (Perhaps the wording in the old version was not the greatest.)

E. Vuissens is one of them, but Surpierre is only part of the other.

F. The districts of the Canton of Bern were reorganized on 1 Jan 2010, so Laupen district no longer exists, having become part of Bern-Mittelland.

G. It is part of Petilla de Aragón. I'm not sure if it has any administrative authority separate from the rest of the municipality.

Thanks for your diligence! --Lasunncty (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your work here and for providing these details.

What you termed "central Bremen" (the main part of Bremen City) is what I termed "Hansestadt Bremen (Süd)." And what you noted as "part of Bremen" (the portion of the city not included in "central Bremen") is what is shown as "Überseehafengebiet" on some maps. (Therefore, Bremerhaven and "part of Bremen" comprise what I termed "Hansestadt Bremen (Nord).") I regard Hansestadt Bremen (Nord) and Hansestadt Bremen (Süd) both as enclaves within Lower Saxony, as well as exclaves of Freie Hansestadt Bremen (which is the administrative equivalent of Lower Saxony), or of each other, notwithstanding the presence of the river. Is that also what you see?

If you see anything you believe that I did not get right, please feel free to modify.

Jeff in CA 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have now seen maps showing the waters of the North Sea beyond the mouth of the Weser belonging to Lower Saxony, making both the north and south portions of Freie Hansestadt Bremen true enclaves. I dislike calling them Nord and Süd for fear of them being confused for official administrative names. I would just call them north and south, or even just "(2 parcels)".

I have one other item I'd like to ask you about: I noticed you removed Qobu and inserted Çeyildağ. I have seen maps showing both of these en/exclaves, but strangely not both on the same map. Was there a border change recently such that one was formed and the other was abolished? Or is there some kind of border dispute between Absheron and Baku? --Lasunncty (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I myself also wondered about that, as I too have not seen both of them as enclaves on the same map. I probably should have entered a discussion topic here on the Talk page before making the change, so I don't mind if you restore the Qobu entry. It would be good if there are others who want to provide a perspective or additional information. (Also, I have no knowledge of possible developments within Azerbaijan that may have an effect on this.)

I attached more significance to Çeyildağ than to Qobu because it was shown on the map provided by the official Azerbaijan Ministry of Culture and Tourism website. That same map of course showed Qobu attached to Absheron.

But that one source should not be the end of it. I would be interested in knowing if there are any official government sources that have identified Qobu as an enclave, either in the present or in the past.

Perhaps I'll post a message on the Borderpoint group at Yahoo Groups asking someone there to weigh in. I might also try to find one or both on an old Soviet military topo map.

Jeff in CA 02:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

At http://download.maps.vlasenko.net/smtm100/k-39-135.jpg is an old Soviet topo map showing Çeyildağ in Cyrillic script at x=54, y=64. But there is nothing to indicate (at least to my eye) that it is an ex/enclave.

Jeff in CA 19:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I did some digging with Google Images, and here are a few maps I found showing both Qobu and Çeyildağ as exclaves: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] --Lasunncty (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Exclaves of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina". 26 Mar 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-28.

Russia: Tatarstan, Udmurtia, Chuvashia and Azerbaijan exclaves (subnational and national)

I've added a bunch of subnational en/exclaves between autonomous Russian republics and Oblasts that are marked on detailed area maps. These also show up very nicely on Google Maps. In addition I've found two Russian national exclaves in Azerbaijan and one reverse. See http://iwpr.net/report-news/azerbaijan-enclaves-fall-between-two-stools. There's ample reference to the existence of these three villages but I can't find them anywhere on any map. Should this stop us from including them on this list?Sveingold (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaves Khrakhoba and Uryanoba aren't exist since 2004: 'No Russian enclaves' in Azerbaijan, Matter of citizenship choice raised before residents of Azerbaijani villages Khrakhoba and Uryanoba. Aotearoa (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those enclaves are no longer in existence, with the final transfer in 2012 (under a 2010 treaty) of residents from Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan, which could have been the same village of Khrakhoba (or, on the other hand, perhaps not).

(1) http://www.deyerler.org

Azerbaijan Islam News

8 July 2008

Microsoft Translator: Russian Ambassador: the village Ur′ânoba and Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan belongs to Azerbaijan

(2) http://www.talish.org

Regnum News Agency

5 March 2011

Residents of the village of Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan will be invited or take a citizenship of Azerbaijan, or resettle in Russia

Microsoft Translator:

"Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan and Ur′ânoba villages in Khachmaz district of Azerbaijan in May 1954, the Council of Ministers of the USSR as the pastures were temporarily redeployed to the Dagestan Autonomous Republic of the Russian SFSR. In 1984, the Council of Ministers of the Azerbaijani SSR extended it for another 20 years, until 2004. Some of the inhabitants of these villages have taken Russian citizenship. The Treaty on the State border between Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation, signed in September 2010, Russia confirmed its recognition of the conditioning of these villages."

(3) Azerbaijan has received a piece of Dagestan [12]

APS Northwest

23 June 2011

Microsoft Translator:

"The Russian authorities decided to ... transfer parts of Dagestan to Azerbaijan territory with the villages of Ur′ânoba and Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan. About 300 of the inhabitants of those villages are facing a choice: leave or take Azerbaijani citizenship. Authorities have already said that money for help in moving the budget."

(4) Russia in Transcaucasia: What’s Gone Wrong?

Russia in Global Affairs

by Andrey Yepifantsev

24 September 2011

Why Moscow’s Efforts to Shape an Effective Policy Are Ineffective

"In 2010, two agreements were signed according to which Azerbaijan received half of the Samur River’s watershed, which previously belonged entirely to Russia. Just recently two Lezgian villages – Uryanoba and Khrakhoba – changed hands along with 500 local Lezgian residents."

(5) Embassy of Russia in Azerbaijan: the situation with the Russian citizens living in the villages of Ur′ânoba and Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan, fully resolved

30 April 2012

Microsoft Translator:

APA reports quoting the Russian Embassy in Azerbaijan in mid-April, all residents of Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan Russian citizens left the village.

"Delicate humanitarian situation around these villages can be considered fully settled in a civilized manner, that was yet another demonstration of the links established between Russia and Azerbaijan relations of good-neighbourliness and mutual understanding. Currently, on the instructions of the President of the Russian Federation issues of material aid to the inhabitants of the village resettled from Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan in Dagestan, the Russian Federation," the Embassy said in a statement.

As we have informed, after the signing of the Treaty on the State border between Azerbaijan and Russia in September 2010 year was the question of defining the status of the inhabitants of the villages of Ur′ânoba and Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan, whose inhabitants are mostly of the Magaramkent and Akhtynsky districts of Dagestan. Azerbaijan invited the residents of the two villages to take the citizenship of Azerbaijan in a simplified manner while maintaining citizenship of Russia. Ur′ânoba citizens permanently resident in Russia had taken advantage of this offer, legalising its continued presence in Azerbaijan as citizens of this country.

Residents of Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan decided to resettle individually on the territory of the Republic of Dagestan. Resettlement began in the spring of 2011. It was held in close cooperation of the competent authorities of Azerbaijan, the Russian Embassy and authorities in Dagestan.

Also, for a reference to a Yahoo group discussion from 2008, see http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/borderpoint/conversations/topics/3313

An old Soviet topo map at http://download.maps.vlasenko.net/smtm100/k-39-086.jpg shows Khrakhoba (Charachoba), in Cyrillic looking like "Xapaxoba," at the intersection of coordinate lines at 93-16 and 46-08.

The same map also shows Urjanoba just west of "XA4MAC," in Cyrillic looking somewhat like "ypRHoba" (with a number "3" beneath the name, just NW of the height mark 104.7) at the intersection of coordinates 39-13 and 45-93. Urjanoba is about 15 km to the SSW of Khrakhoba.

Jeff in CA 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the elaborate references! It's still somewhat mysterious. It seems some pasture lands were leased out in the 1950s and that people from Dagestan moved into Azerbaijan (then all Soviet Union and they all seem to be Lezgians anyway either side of the border, so not that much of a deal apparently). Now the citizenship of these immigrants has been settled, with apparently everybody in Uryanoba becoming Azerbaijan citizens and people (all?) in Khrakhoba moving "back" to Dagestan/Russian Federation. So were these true exclaves, or just a matter of land rights and people who lived there for decades along with it, now finally seeing their citizenship being settled? Also, not a word on the Azerbaijan exclave in Russia. You'd think that was part of the deal... BTW those articles in Cyrillic always refer to Uryanoba and Khrakhoba, while Ilham Aliyev and Serzh Sarkisyan are the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, respectively. I can't imagine the Azerbaijans would (re)name a village after the president of a country they're practically at war with (Aliyev on the other hand makes sense). Perhaps something went wrong with Microsoft Translator... Sveingold (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subnational enclave in Panama near El Piro

The enclave near El Piro is shown by Bing Maps as bordering both Chiriquí and Veraguas Provinces. However, maps at Wikimedia Commons show El Piro as a definite enclave within Veraguas (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Panama_-_Ngobe_Bugle_-_Muna.svg) because of a boundary defined by a stream. Bing does not assign a border line to the stream. Note that on the Bing aerial view, one can readily see and follow the stream boundary that is indicated in the svg map. It barely avoids the border with Chiriquí Province, so I think this is Bing's miss.

Jeff in CA 03:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the “multiple issues” banner

Proposal to remove the following “multiple issues” banner from the introduction section:

{multiple issues |refimprove=January 2009 |self-published=January 2009}

The multiple issues banner on this article was placed there almost 5 years ago in January 2009.

Consider the statement, “This article needs additional citations for verification.”

A walk through the revision history shows that at the time, there were only 6 citations listed. Six. The article now has at least 79 citations that are referenced 100 times in the list. In my opinion, the intended effect has been accomplished.

As for the admonition that “This article may contain improper references to self-published sources,” this evidently refers to the website of the acknowledged expert in the community, Jan Krogh. At the time that the “issue” banner was added in January, 2009, three of the six citations referred to Mr. Krogh’s set of web pages. Anyone caring to inspect those web pages will see that Mr. Krogh has carefully cited his sources for the information that he presents.

I believe that there are no improper references to self-published sources – either then or now.

Therefore, I propose that the “Multiple Issues” banner on this list be removed.

Please chime in with your thoughts and discuss this proposal.

Jeff in CA 07:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the banner today, 26 October 2013.

Jeff in CA 20:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Crimea

I know this is extremely controversial, but shouldn't Crimea be added to the list of "Potential exclaves pending international resolution" ? 2A02:1205:5029:30A0:A857:54FA:D26E:9DA4 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jungholz, Austria

The above is listed as both an exclave and a penne exclave. It can't be both. Which is it? I reviewed Google Maps and if Google Maps is correct, Jungholz is definitely not an exclave. Could we try to bottom this out? User: Jeff in CA reverted my removal of Jungholz from the list of exclaves. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that my remarks above do not have anything to do with "quadrapoints" or some concept like that. I plainly state that according to Google maps there is a physical corridor of land connecting Jungholz with the rest of Austria and on that basis it is not an Exclave. My other point is als that it can't be both an Exclave and a Penne Exclave. Is there indeed a corridor of land connecting it to the rest of Austria? If so, it can't be an exclave.Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the micro-level, Google Maps of international borders are inaccurate. It really seems as though someone re-created the borders on Google's aerial photos by using a light-pen to make dots while looking at a normal map, and then connecting the dots with line segments (e.g., see the Google line in the Rainy River between Minnesota and Ontario – it bisects many islands when in fact the real border avoids all islands). In a section of Google's Rio Grande mapping, there are even tiny pink dots that were made manually that show up at a certain level of zooming-in on the international border. In the case of Jungholz, Wikipedia references a 1958 topo map that indicates the Sorgschrofen summit by a small dotted-circle beneath which the map is "whited-out." This little section of the whited-out border happens to correspond to the gap that appears in the Google map at the mountain's summit. One can readily view the discrepancy by finding Jungholz on http://mapper.acme.com and comparing "Map" (Google) to "Mapnik" and "NexRad." In addition, the treatises by Whyte and Vinokurov are unwavering on this. Jeff in CA (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, one could also go to the actually boundary cross, and also look at the historical maps and such, with the help of the site we link to at Jungholz: http://jungholz.enclaves.org/. The inaccuracies and guesses in some maps can be ignored when there is an actual border treaty to refer to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what about Alaska?

Alaska seems to be an exclave. if Oman's Musandam is an exclave, then surely Alaska is too. both are bordered only bordered by foreign nations and the ocean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8100:9BDA:A8AD:5E88:B20A:8C53 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is a pene-enclave, land that borders one foreign territory and its own unsurrounded territorial waters. Both Alaska and Musandam are listed in the section on pene-enclaves. Jeff in CA (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was recently changed to separate the concept of the "semi-enclave" from the section on "pene-enclave," with which it had been co-mingled. Both Alaska and Musandam are, in fact, non-sovereign semi-enclaves. See Talk:Enclave and exclave.Jeff in CA (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Australian Commonwealth Territory and Commonwealth Land

The following is copied from Talk:Beecroft_Peninsula:

In the Seat of Government Surrender Act 1909 (NSW) ^[a] NSW surrendered approximately 900 square miles of land (around the site for Canberra) and granted approximately 6 square miles of land (around Jervis Bay) to the Commonwealth. In the Seat of Government Surrender Act 1915 (NSW)^[b] NSW surrendered approximately 26 square miles of land on the southern side of Jervis Bay to the Commonwealth. The land on the Beecroft Peninsula is owned by the Commonwealth but is in NSW. It's exactly the same arrangement as any other Commonwealth owned land as is the case at Sydney or Melbourne airports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidson99 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree, it appears to be confusion between Commonwealth Land and Commonwealth Territory. The Beecroft peninsular was subject to the 1909 act that created commonwealth land on the peninsular. The 1915 act created the JBT on the southern side of the bay. CamV8 (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
...

I think it is pretty clear that Adavidson99 & CamV8 are right about the area being Commonwealth-owned land in NSW. ... [However,] confusion about the status of the southern coast of the peninsula extends to some fairly reputable sources. ... TheSciolist (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"Because of the association with the nearby Jervis Bay Territory and because it is occupied by the Navy, there is sometimes the mistaken belief that the southern strip of the peninsula is a part of the ACT or a separate Commonwealth territory.^[c] Therefore, I have removed the entry regarding the Beecroft Peninsula from this list.Jeff in CA (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sogsa1909317/index.html
^ http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sogsa1915317/index.html
^ For example a 1995 Geology map produced by The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (Geoscience Australia) includes this strip in Jervis Bay Territory [1] and the Shoalhaven City Council excludes the area from its land-use maps."[2]

Nunez rocks

I agree that they are south of the A-B line, but I can't find any US map that acknowledges them as Canadian. Plus the description says the US uses Nunez Rocks as a basepoint for its territorial sea. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's any official US government map that acknowledges Nunez Rocks as such. That's because, to the US government, they do not exist as land. Being submerged for part of each day, they are a "Low Tide Elevation" (LTE) as defined by the UNCLOS. Although the US has never ratified the UNCLOS, the State Department voluntarily adheres to its terms and the prescriptive methods promulgated by it. Under the UNCLOS, the method for ascertaining a territorial sea around a state's coasts allows the use of LTEs as basepoints, even though they are not "land." The US has used Nunez Rocks as such a basepoint. This is strange indeed, because if part of Nunez Rocks were never submerged (i.e., an island), then the US would consider it to be part of Canada. Of course, Canada considers all lands and waters south of the "A-B" Line to be Canadian. (Note also that UNCLOS does not allow claims of territorial seas that are based solely upon uninhabitable rocks.)

There is a weird parallel situation that involves the US. Quita Sueno Bank in the Caribbean used to be claimed by both Columbia and the US. The US ceded its claim in part because, according to its analysis, none of the features of the bank were islands, just all LTEs. However, in a recent case between Columbia and Nicaragua at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague pertaining to UNCLOS, the court used an analytical method that found one of the 54 features to be an island and awarded sovereignty over the bank to Columbia on that basis.

I'll credit XavierGreen for enabling me to boil down the answers to my many questions into the synopsis above. He and I had a lengthy discussion in Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States regarding the logic of the US position vis-a-vis the UNCLOS. That discussion is interspersed among and within several of the Talk topics there.

So Nunez Rocks is a special situation for practical purposes. On the one hand, it is unmistakably above-water territory for part of each day, while on the other, it is a LTE according to the UNCLOS regime. Ownership of the waters that each day surround that territory is disputed between the US and Canada. So this "part-time island" is certainly not American and arguably can only be Canadian. What is observable to the eye for part of every day is a Canadian physical island surrounded by waters that are claimed by the United States (as well as by Canada). Jeff in CA (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this again, I still don't believe the rocks can be considered an en/exclave. The fact that the US uses them for its baseline means that it claims them to be American. As you say, it can only do this because it doesn't classify them as "land". --Lasunncty (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I submit the following points for consideration.

Islands are physical observable natural masses, some of which are islands for only part of each day.

An enclave can exist in a condition of occasionally or repeatedly being submerged and exposed by water.

The concept of "Low Tide Elevations" as "features" to be regarded as part of the water area in which they are located is an artificial one, created for the purpose of inter-entity understanding.

The concept of "Low Tide Elevation" under the UNCLOS treaty regime does not pose a conflict with the physical observable reality of a natural mass that is exposed above the water that surrounds it.

Canada claims ownership of everything south of the A-B Line. Nunez Rocks, which are intermittently submerged every day, lie south of the A-B Line.

The United States, under its interpretation of the 1903 arbitration decision, has consistently maintained and still does maintain that natural masses south of the A-B Line that are normally above water are owned by Canada. This interpretation preceded the later concept of "Low Tide Elevation" under the UNCLOS treaty regime.

Until the U.S. in the late 1970s declared a sea delimitation about its coast, it regarded any water area south of the A-B Line (covered by the 1903 Arbitration decision) to be international waters.

The U.S. claim to ownership of Nunez Rocks is based upon the UNCLOS treaty regime construct for promulgating territorial sea delimitations for recognition internationally. Nunez Rocks lies within the coastal delimitation declared by the U.S. That Nunez Rocks is a UNCLOS LTE additionally served to allow the U.S. to enhance its delimitation.

However, the U.S. claim does not depend on Nunez Rocks qualifying as a LTE. The claim exists simply because the rocks are within a specified distance of the U.S. coast.

The U.S. is not a signatory to the UNCLOS treaty. In fact, absent a UNCLOS treaty ratification, the U.S. is free to ignore its modus operandi and lay claim to any international waters in the world.

Only upon declaring a territorial sea area in the late 1970s did the U.S. claim the waters surrounding Nunez Rocks.

Canada claims and (with Britain before it) has had an uninterrupted claim to ownership of Nunez Rocks no matter what its natural, physical, temporal or conceptual status is.

International water surrounding a natural mass with claimed ownership does not constitute an enclave. On the other hand, water within the declared territorial sea of one nation surrounding a natural mass that has had an uninterrupted claim of ownership by another nation is indeed an enclave (albeit an unusual one in this case).

Jeff in CA (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the US considers them to be Canadian only during low tide? --Lasunncty (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Let me say this: Because the U.S. used Nunez Rocks as a LTE in 1977, the U.S. might have in effect "amended," vis-a-vis Nunez Rocks only, its long-standing position regarding land south of the A-B Line. That's debatable. What I do believe is that, given the entire geopolitical history, to consider Nunez Rocks as Canadian altogether would indeed most closely adhere to and support the nearly 113-year-old American interpretation of the 1903 arbitration decision.

However, I think much of that part of the discussion is beside the point in determining whether Nunez Rocks is an enclave. Rather than delving into the legal framework of UNCLOS and its conventions, we can instead accept that overlapping claims have existed since 1977 and reach a satisfactory determination based on the definition of "enclave" and the physical reality of Nunez Rocks. It is not necessary for either government to establish or acknowledge ownership; an undisputed status quo is not a prerequisite. (As for example, Barak is currently an enclave, but Kyrgyzstan fiercely denies that the land around it belongs to Uzbekistan.) Indeed, one can profess that, for Nunez Rocks, the dispute has hatched the enclave. -- Jeff in CA (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems this should be a "potential...pending" en/exclave just because the US's position is not clear.

I have seen maps clearly showing the Barak en/exclave. Presumably they must be Uzbek maps if Kyrgyzstan claims the surrounding territory as well. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the cases of the other such potential exclaves that are listed, there are proposed agreements that if implemented would result in the formation of exclaves that do not yet exist.

Here, it is asserted that the exclave exists in the unresolved current scenario. If there were to be a resolution of the 113-year-old conflict, and either of the parties prevailed on the matter of Nunez Rocks instead of reaching a compromise, there would be no exclave.

The exclave as it currently exists is somewhat abstruse. Because the dispute over the 1903 arbitration wording is unresolved between two parties, the claim status can be shown in a Boolean table as four possibilities. Either one side or the other owns everything, or one side owns the Rocks while the other side owns the water. No one possibilty supercedes any of the others. All four possibilities co-exist but none prevails. The very reason that none prevails is that the dispute is unresolved.

In other words, while it is valid to view one side owning both the Rocks and surrounding waters, that view is not exclusive. It is equally valid to view the current situation as one side owning the Rocks and the other side the waters (i.e., an exclave).

So can we have an exclave existing in the midst of such an unsettled and inexplicit situation? Yes, IMHO.

Jeff in CA (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it that way. To me it appears to be merely disputed territory, with both sides claiming both the rocks and the surrounding waters. It would only become an en/exclave if the US gave up its claim to the rocks and/or Canada gave up its claim to the water.

Another reservation I have about it is that I can find no outside source that mentions even the possibility of an en/exclave here. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with the substance of your reply. I disagree with the word "only." Now then, where have we arrived with our discussion? Do you have a proposed next step? Jeff in CA (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are other ways. I guess I meant the ones I mentioned would be the simplest or most likely.

Should we ask for more input? Is there an authority on the subject we can consult? If not, we could put in the notes that the status depends on the interpretation of the treaties and international laws, or something to that effect.

Thank you for hearing me out, and for your well though out responses. I also appreciate the many improvements you have made to the page for the past 4 years. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked people at the Yahoo Group Borderpoint to weigh in. I received the following response from Len Nadybal:

It takes two to tango. In law, parties needing to decide an issue need standing. You can't have an exclave without a border except in the context of a discussion about the concerned parties' views. Ergo, the subject area doesn't "yet" belong in a list of exclaves/enclaves. I wouldn't call the area "disputed" - just unresolved or ambiguous. The area could also be considered (listed in WP) to be an unincorporated condominium with undefined extent.

Jeff in CA (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I removed the entry for Nunez Rocks from the table for enclaves that are also exclaves. Here is the Wiki text that was removed:

|Nunez Rocks (disputed) || ||

Canada (British Columbia province) ||

United States (state of Alaska) || 54°39′40.00″N 132°5′22.19″W / 54.6611111°N 132.0894972°W ||The status of the waters around Nunez Rocks is disputed. Nunez Rocks is a low-tide elevation, or LTE ("bare at half-tide"^[a]) that is south of a line known as the "A-B" Line,^[b] which was defined in a 1903 arbitration decision on the Alaska/Canada boundary.^[c] The court specified the initial boundary point (Point "A") at the northern end of Dixon Entrance^[d] and also designated Point "B" 72 NM to the east.^[e] Canada relies on the "A-B" Line as rendering nearly all of Dixon Entrance as Canadian internal waters. The U.S. does not recognize the "A-B" Line as an official boundary, instead regarding it as allocating sovereignty over the land masses within the Dixon Entrance,^[b] with Canada's land south of the line. The U.S. regards the waters as subject to international marine law, and in 1977 it defined an equidistant territorial sea within Dixon Entrance.^[b] This territory, which surrounds Nunez Rocks, extends south of the "A-B" line for the most part.^[b] The United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, although it adheres to most of its principles as customary international law. Under the treaty, LTEs may be used as basepoints for a territorial sea, and the U.S. uses Nunez Rocks as a basepoint. As a non-signatory, however, there is nothing preventing the U.S. from claiming areas beyond the scope of the Law of the Sea Treaty. The fact remains that, for about half of each day, above-water territory that Canada regards as Canadian is surrounded by sea territory that the U.S. has declared to be American.

Perhaps it should be placed in the section, "Potential exclaves pending international resolution", as suggested by Lasunncty. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^ U.S. National Geodetic Survey. "NOAA Shoreline Data Explorer". Retrieved 2015-04-10.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Gray, David H. (Autumn 1997). "Canada's Unresolved Maritime Boundaries" (PDF). IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin. p. 61. Retrieved 2015-03-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
^ "International Boundary Commission definition of the Canada/US boundary in the NAD83 CSRS reference frame". Retrieved 2015-03-21.
^ White, James (1914). Boundary Disputes and Treaties. Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company. pp. 936–958.
^ Davidson, George (1903). The Alaska Boundary. San Francisco: Alaska Packers Association. pp. 79–81, 129–134, 177–179, 229.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of enclaves and exclaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130213212545/http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/romanization.html to http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/romanization.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://bibbmonroebattle.com/
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217221416/http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7616-0.pdf to http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/7616-0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earth-info.nga.mil link is now at geonames.nga.mil. The bibbmonroebattle.com link still does not work (archive gives an error). The viewer.nationalmap.gov link was not actually dead. The transport.ie link is now at irishstatutebook.ie. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Biagio

I have here a tourist map of Sicily, which shows at least two provincial enclaves:

Resuttano, which I added because its article and that of its province mention its exclave status.
San Biagio (far from San Biagio Platani), 37°38′21″N 13°09′30″E / 37.63928°N 13.15828°E / 37.63928; 13.15828, apparently an exclave of Palermo, about which I can find no information.

—Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Biagio is apparently part of Bisacquino [it]. However, both of these examples are secondary en/exclaves within the region of Sicily. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of enclaves and exclaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to update some of the links to avoid using the archives. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of enclaves and exclaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found updated links for some of these. For the politik.de link I found a possible alternative here, although this seems to be quoting another source, so I didn't include it. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two enclaves of Catalonia

Added two enclaves: Valielles (Barcelona, surrounded by Lleida) and Malagarriga (Lleida, surrounded by Barcelona), I don't know why they were not there. --189.131.202.21 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, also changed Rovira de Baix, I also don't know why it said Solelles de les Rovires --189.131.202.21 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Lado Enclave not an enclave nor exclave

The Lado Enclave, listed among the historical enclaves and exclaves, wasn't an enclave because it bordered more than one country (Egyptian Sudan, Uganda and Congo Free State); it wasn't an exclave because it bordered with its mainland (Congo Free State). It was just an extension of the mainland, directly attached to it. Maps prove it, please remove Lado Enclave from the section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcr land (talk • contribs) 17:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of enclaves and exclaves. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found updated links for many of these. --Lasunncty (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would these examples qualfiy as? (Enclaves that are not exclaves, enclaves that are also exclaves etc.) - need to check first.

Although this isn't a major edit, I don't want to make cruft, so I thought I'd gain consensus first.

What would these examples count as using the list which shows the 5 different types:

East Moor, Worsley, Salford (a street only accessible via Bridgwater Road, Tyldesley in Metropolitan Borough of Wigan - housing estate built circa 1992) (It's on Street View, but not sure if this is original research to add to the list.

Parts of Ince-in-Makerfield that were only accessible via Ashton-in-Makerfield (relying on a now-deleted Geocities site that is no longer online, not even the Internat Archive, would this be original research as a source? I can't find much about these).

A road in Warrington (think it was Common Road) that you have to go through St. Helens to get to (on the road to Newton-le-Willows)

A street in City of Manchester (Winterford Road) which has streetlighting lit by bordering City of Salford (highway through another's territory possibly?).

I wasn't sure what qualified so am asking here. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that these examples meet the list criteria for this article (note that "highway through another's territory" is not a category included in this list). It appears that your angle is that these roads and streets are inaccessible areas. However, what commonly makes an area inaccessible is precisely the lack of roads. Finally, none of these (as you have described them) appears to be completely surrounded by another administratively equivalent area or areas, so none is an en/exclave. Jeff in CA (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Fonseca

The description of the condominium waters of the Gulf of Fonseca might be easier to grasp if the "eastern" and "western" sections were described instead as "inner" and "outer". Thus: The outer zone opens directly to the Pacific Ocean, and is separated from the inner zone by the territorial waters of Salvadoran and Nicaraguan islets. —Tamfang (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I have made the change. Jeff in CA (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hemi-pen-exclave

Here's a funny one. Dover Street is entirely in Oakland, California, though it appears that the houses on its west side are in Berkeley. Dover Street is crossed by Fairview Street. The block of Fairview east of Dover is one-way eastbound. So you can leave Dover Street to the east without leaving Oakland, but to enter Dover Street you have to come in from the west through Berkeley. (I'm getting this information from OpenStreetMap; can someone confirm in person?) —Tamfang (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xàtiva, València, Spain

[13]----Bancki (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhekelia Power Station

I recently edited this page to remove “Dhekelia power station” as an example of an exclave that is also an enclave. However, my edits were reverted by User: Jeff in CA . The disagreement arose because I believed that we could not consider the power station an enclave, as the sea around it was claimed by the Republic of Cyprus and, indeed, recognized as such by the UN (the article claims they were “UK waters”. I used this UN annex as my source (^[1]) to prove UN recognition and this wikimedia image (^[2]) to show that, a) this extended to the EEZ, and, b) that Wikipedia itself realized this was the case. User: Jeff in CA reverted my edits citing the following sources: The treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus (Annex I, Section III), The book International Boundaries, A Geopolitical Atlas (http://books.google.com/?id=E7-menNPxREC&pg=PA220 International Boundaries, A Geopolitical Atlas), and US State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, International Boundary Study 1972, https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/61520.pdf. The treaty establishing the the Republic of Cyprus barred the Republic from claiming these territorial waters as it considered them to be British waters. User: Jeff in CA Later cited this statement by Tullio Scovazzi: “ "The maritime boundary in question is rather unusual insofar as the treaty merely establishes an obligation of one of the parties [Cyprus] not to claim as a part of its territorial waters the area lying between four lines drawn from its territory." And yet, "[d]espite the Treaty, the straight baseline system established by Cyprus in 1993 encloses the SBAs, as if they had no coastal waters of their own." [He then asserts] "The extension of the territorial sea claimed by Cyprus is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is the legal condition of the waters between the lines." (http://www.gmfus.org/publications/maritime-boundaries-eastern-mediterranean-sea and http://www.gmfus.org/file/2674/download). User: Jeff in CA also commented: “We must adhere to reliable sources with conclusive statements, not what someone infers from one party's alleged silence.“ I then attempted to revert User: Jeff in CA ’s edits, but he kindly informed me that I was not allowed to do this and I had to bring the subject to the talk page if I wished to continue, which brings us here.

Here, I will attempt to show why I disagree with User: Jeff in CA ‘s sources and why I believe my edits should be sustained;

The treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus: The treaty barred the Republic of Cyprus from claiming the waters around Dhekelia (and Akrotiri, for that matter). I believe that through the sources I have provided it is clear that the Republic of Cyprus DID claim the waters, seemingly in violation of the treaty. The United Nations also seems to recognize this claim seeing as it provided the annex I ave linked. We are not the International Court of Justice, we are people who gather data and present it in a simple, accessible way. We can’t just rule that the waters belong to the UK through this treaty. Regardless of which party is right, I find it wrong to bluntly claim that the waters around the power station are “UK waters.” This gives the readers of Wikipedia the impression that it is objectively true and undisputed that these are UK waters, which is not the case. It would also be wrong on the matter of consistency, seeing as most other wikipedia articles claim the waters belong to Cyprus. I prove this by providing the EEZ map above. User: Jeff in CA also provided no evidence that the UK itself does not recognize the delimitation of the territorial waters of Cyprus. I therefore find that the treaty mentioned above does not allow us to objectively claim the waters are UK waters.

http://books.google.com/?id=E7-menNPxREC&pg=PA220 International Boundaries, A Geopolitical Atlas: This source claims that Cyprus “may not claim” these waters. This is clearly sourced from the treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus, and the author seems to have either not been aware that Cyprus HAD claimed those waters or they were aware but believed they couldn’t have, which is an opinion, and we can not source opinions to subjects like these, especially without acknowledging the fact that they are opinions and that an opposing opinion exists. The annex I have provided is not a third party opinion but the opinion (and hence claim) of both Cyprus itself and the UN. If we were to use an opinion such as this one in every reference of a dispute (even though in this case it might bot even be a disputed as we have no proof so far that the Uk claims these waters) then we would essentially take sides in every border dispute and claim that one party is objectively correct without providing the opposing opinion, thus giving our readers the impression that no dispute exists and that one side is objectively correct.

US State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, International Boundary Study 1972, (link https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/61520.pdf): This source is dated before the source I have provided, thus invalidating it. It is also weaker on the grounds that it is nit a Primary source, such as the one I have provided.

Tullio Scovazzi’s opinion: I find this to be invalid on the grounds that it is an opinion, which, as I have stated above can’t be used here. Professor Scovazzi does not deny that Cyprus claimsthese waters, or that the Cypriot claim is enforced, he just argues that this shouldn’t be the case. Also note that Professor Scovazzi claims that the coast belongs to the UK even though it is without a doubt true that this specific coastline belongs to Cyprus.

I will cease to support the edits I propose if each of my arguments is disproven

As an end note, I’d like to thank User: Jeff in CA , because, regardless of our recent disagreement and almost-edit-war, it is clear that they set aside much of their spare time to work in this article and all their edits are in good faith and done with utmost research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnolGua (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an ongoing dispute, perhaps it should be moved to the "Potential exclaves pending international resolution" section. Or at least the ambiguity should be mentioned. --Lasunncty (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but first we need to find an official source (and not just a person’s opinion) which proves that the UK has claimed these waters after the Cypriot delimitation, otherwise, this wouldn’t be a dispute. However, I‘ve found a source that shows that the UK no longer enforces any claim on these waters. In the Agreement between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (Article 1 Paragraph C), “The median line, as determined, appears graphically on the Official Hydrographic Chart published by the British Admiralty No. 183 (Ra’s at tin to Iskendrium), scale 1/1,100,000 (Attached hereto as Annex II, which constitutes an integral part to this agreement).”^[3] Here’s a link to that Annex: ^[4] This clearly shows that the British Admiralty, which belongs to the UK government, did not claim that the waters around Akrotiri and Dhekelia are Uk waters, and this, remember, is an official document, not an unofficial one. You can clearly see this if you see the map of Cyprus, which also shows its territorial waters. Therefore, I think we have proof that it is undisputed by the UK that these waters are the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus. KnolGua (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the following changes should be made as a results of this: 1. Akrotiri and Dhekelia should be removed from Non-sovereign semi-enclaves seeing as the sea around them is not UK waters (and, as I have already established, no claim currently exists or is enforced). Even assuming the waters around Akrotiri and Dhekelia are UK waters, it wouldn’t be an “unsurrounded sea border,” due to the EEZ of Cyprus, seeing as the relevant treaty didn’t establish anything but territorial waters. 2. The phrases “four small exclaves” should be changed to “three small exclaves” for Ormidhia and Xylotymbou on their respective listings and the phrases “four exclaves” should be changed to “three exclaves” in their respective articles. 3. I also believe it would be logical to include Akrotiri and Dhekelia as enclaves and exclaves. KnolGua (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this does not suffice I also have more proof.

1) The original map of the territorial waters was also made by the British Admiralty

2)(^[5]) This report by the UK government, on page 158, has a paragraoh for “SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES”. It reads: “28. The Government of the RoC (Republic of Cyprus) acknowledges the UK’s sovereignty over the SBAs, although it believes that the UK’s sovereignty is “limited” because the areas were retained solely for military purposes. The UK position is that the SBAs have all the attributes of fully sovereign territory. This difference of opinion does not prevent good day-to—day co-operation with the RoC over the operation of the SBAs.” This shows that there is no dispute regarding the waters around Akrotiri and Dhekeleia, seeing as I have provided sufficient evidence that they’re claimed by Cyprus. If the UK had continued to claim the waters, there would be a separate sentence about these waters since Cyprus doesn’t “acknowledge the UK’s sovereignty” over them.

KnolGua (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, My mistake. The UK claims the waters (here’s the official confirmation which I used as my source:^[6]) (Regarding my former claim that the UK would admite under “sovereignty dispute” that the waters are disputed, it seems from this source the UK government does not admit the existence of a dispute). Therefore, I think we should go with Lasunncty’s proposal. Regarding the existence of a Cypriot claim, ^[7] and ^[8] both show that a Cypriot claim exists. For the sake of giving a secondary source, ^[9] confirms the existence of a Cypriot claim. Cyprus also claims partial sovereignty over Akrotiri and Dhekelia, but this is a subject for another day. In the meantime, I think we must move the power station to the disputed category, as per NPOV. However, "Potential exclaves pending international resolution" is meant to be for potential exclaves, not enclaves that are also exclaves. Therefore we should either create a new category or instead of moving the power station we can just mention the ambiguity (even though, in my opinion, this would be biased against Cyprus as we would indirectly support the UK claim by including it in the “enclaves and exclaves.”) Akrotiri and Dhekelia, however, are definitely enclaves, seeing as even if the waters three miles around the areas were considered UK waters, they are enclosed within Cypriot waters and the UK government has confirmed that it “(has) reserved (its) rights to claim up to 12 nautical miles.” Regarding the power station, we could say “partially borders the coast but borders a territorial sea claimed by both Cyprus and the UK. The power station is owned by the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC); no permanent population.” In order to avoid taking sides in the dispute the words “four” should be removed in the part for the two villages and the word “exclaves” must be replaced with “territories” in the part for the refugee camp. If the article remains as it is, it almost definitely doesn’t count as NPOV, because it only takes in to account opinion supporting one side and instead of referring to the dispute it pretends that it doesn’t exist so as to give the impression that that side’s view is undisputedly true. KnolGua (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the web page at http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa2016.nsf/mfa84_en/mfa84_en?OpenDocument:

This web page includes a link to a "map of the baselines". Although the map was published by the government of Cyprus, it states that the sources are previous British Admiralty charts and navigational surveys. (Curiously, it displays insignias not only of the Republic of Cyprus but also of Monaco.)

The map shows baselines along the coast of the island of Cyprus that appear to have been added to a previous map illustrating coastal underwater depth contours. Internationally accepted methods for drawing baselines around an island permit practical approaches based on physical geography and to accommodate fairly the interests of neighboring polities. Such approaches allow for boundaries to be observed.

The purpose of the map itself appears to be to illustrate baselines, rather than to illustrate a territorial sea. As part of the process that applies internationally for delineating such baselines, procedures allow a polity to select among several allowable methods, all somewhat complex. Therefore, the process necessarily involves elements of interpretation and potentially invites dispute.

This web page states, "The waters which lie between the land and the baselines constitute part of the internal waters of the Republic of Cyprus." This refers to the land that is part of the Republic of Cyprus, for that is clearly the only land to which this statement can apply. That is to say, the quoted statement does not refer to the waters between the Sovereign Base Areas and the baselines, as logically it cannot refer to land that is not the land of the Republic of Cyprus. The internal waters of the Republic of Cyprus consist of the waters between the Republic of Cyprus and the baselines, which constitute only a part of the waters between the island of Cyprus and the baselines.

This web page and the map to which it links do not necessarily illustrate or argue that the territorial sea of the Republic of Cyprus includes sea areas that adjoin the Sovereign Base Areas.

The article abstract from the University of Nicosia at http://www.rcenter.intercol.edu/newsletter/In%20Depth/volume%206%20issue%205/article04.htm states, "While article 3 of Annex A of the Treaty of Establishment provides that the Republic of Cyprus shall not claim as part of its territorial sea, waters lying between the four Lines described in the Annex, this has been interpreted as a sui generis right of the Base Areas to control some part of the territorial sea, as well as a sui generis obligation of the Republic of Cyprus to accept certain restrictions to the extent of its right to territorial sea." The author goes further to assert, "the purpose of the aforementioned provision with regard to territorial sea, was to safeguard free access to the territory controlled by the SBAs and under no circumstances to accept that the British Base Areas have a right to territorial sea."

However, at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130325/text/130325w0002.htm#130325w0002.htm_wqn0 from a statement of the UK government to Parliament, "The adjacent territorial sea boundaries between the two sovereign base areas and the Republic of Cyprus are defined in annex A of the treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, 19 August 1960. Presently, both sovereign base areas claim a territorial sea out to three nautical miles but we have reserved our rights to claim up to 12 nautical miles on their behalf, as provided for under the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS)."

What we can conclude is that an ambiguity exists.

The determination of enclave/exclave status generally takes into account territorial seas, not EEZs and continental shelf zones (the concept of sea enclaves created by arrangements of EEZs excepted). Therefore, for the purpose of this determination, it cannot be concluded that the UK maritime claim is completely enclosed by Cypriot waters. If we were to consider continental shelf zones or EEZs explicitly in the determination of types of enclaves, we would need to reevaluate all such coastal entities within the Wikipedia list.

Akrotiri and Dhekelia should still continue to be shown as "non-sovereign semi-enclaves" and not as "enclaves that are also exclaves". I believe we can add some wording to the entries to indicate that an ambiguity exists. The same could be done for the Dhekelia Power Station at its current listing.

Jeff in CA (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff in CA: "008.05.1347 Έκθεση κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής" Provides clear legal arguments on the part of the Cypriots. According to dr. Lyssarides (whose opinion was confirmed by the government of Cyprus) “Internationally accepted methods” may not apply because the UK does not exercise full sovereignty over Akrotiri and Dhekelia and has, at times, provided signs of recognition to the government in the North, which, to dr. Lyssarides, is a breach of the treaties giving the UK sovereignty to its bases, which say it must provide for the defense of Cyprus. Lyssarides goes on to give a list of reasons Sovereignty over the SBA’s does not fully belong to the UK. I will summarize it as follows:

The UK claims it has kept the territories as a continuation of the Cyprus Colony, which, to dr. Lyssarides, goes against every country’s right to sovereignty in international law, and the UN’s laws against colonies.

Assuming arguendo that the UK is allowed the rights it was allocated, these were only military rights and it cannot, therefore, claim to have full sovereignty.

The treaty establishing the Republic of Cyprus, which, to mr Lyssarides, is still subjective to the UK’s claims, provides that prior to the use of the waters of the area, the UK must consult with the government of Cyprus

According to the said treaty, the UK must provide direct reasoning if it limits the freedom of movement of the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus by closing down roads. To dr. Lyssarides, the UK often closes down roads “only providing general reasons.”

Dr Lyssarides also states the Areas are administered in the “colonial system,” where an administrator makes all decisions regarding law, which, to dr. Lyssarides, means that all decisions by the courts of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are invalid because they are based on laws of an “administrative” nature.

Finally, dr. Lyssarides says that the UK owes large sums of money to the Republic of Cyprus which it must pay to keep the bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

In a reply from the Attorney general, the Attorney general confirms the opinion that (to Cyprus) sovereignty over the areas is limited. The Attorney General provides the following points given in the relevant treaties to prove this opinion:

British bases will not be developed for non-military purposes.

Colonies will not be established and administered.

Customs ties between the Republic and the British bases will not be established.

It will not be allowed to set up commercial or industrial enterprises other than those directly connected to the British military presence at the bases, and in any case no action will be taken that could violate the island's industrial and business unity.

No commercial ports or airports will be built.

Population installation will not be supervised unless there are temporary reasons.

Property will not be expropriated without the payment of the necessary compensation.

Regarding the Territorial waters, the following opinion is given:

“The issue has been carefully discussed from time to time and the opinion is that the territorial waters in the British bases and therefore the continental shelf (i.e extension of the land to the sea) are not recognized. This position is also a position of the Legal Service.

A relevant decision of a Cypriot court, in a criminal case, states that the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus. The same case also states that there is a combat presumption that can only be overturned if sufficient evidence is presented that the territorial waters corresponding to the British bases are part of them.

In connection to the above, Mr. Nikitas pointed out that the wording of the relevant article of the Establishment Treaty raises a question, as this is done in a strangely negative way, predicting that Cyprus will not submit a request that the marine waters located between these lines ( Line I and Line II ), as described in this article, will never be part of its territorial waters.”

The Minister of Foreign Affairs later gave his opinion, shutting down all ambiguity regarding the Cypriot claim to the Territorial Sea:

“The Republic of Cyprus does not accept the position that the British bases have an Exclusive Economic Zone or a continental shelf. The position of the Republic is presented clean and through the negotiations that took place for the dividing line between the economic zones of Egypt and Cyprus. This position has been submitted to the United Nations and the United Kingdom has not reacted officially. so there is tacit acceptance of the positions of the Republic of Cyprus.

Given the fact that the concept and rights of the "continental shelf" came into force in 1982, with the enactment of the new Law of the Sea, it becomes clear that at the stage of drawing up the Treaty of Establishment, ie in 1960, no provision could have been made. for continental shelf or for economic zone. The continental shelf is granted under Maritime Law, which has been in force since 1982, to states which have territorial waters, and only States can have Territorial Seas.”

The latter sentence shows that a Cypriot claim does exist. Please do not provide legal arguments to oppose these opinions. The only body with a jurisdiction in cases like these is the International Court of Justice. Our job is to provide Encyclopedic overviews in all subjects and not to decide on issues. The quotes I have given support that the Republic of Cyprus claims the Territorial sea around the areas, and the reason it does this is that it claims to have partial (if not full) sovereignty over the areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in General, and that “they are not states” and therefore do not possess the rights provided thereto. Therefore, according to Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are indeed “land that is part of the Republic of Cyprus,” which I suppose answers to your question regarding the MoI’s document. There are two main pieces of evidence to support the existence of a Cypriot claim. Firstly, the Attorney General gives evidence that, “the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus.” The fact that a crime was tried in the areas regarding them as “Territorial Waters” of the Republic of Cyprus not only clearly shows that Cyprus claims the waters, but that it exercises its sovereignty over them. Secondly, the minister of Foreign Affairs provides the government’s opinion that “Only states can have territorial waters.” Therefore, seeing as the Minister implies Akrotiri and Dhekelia is not a state, it is clear that he implies that, besides the EEZ and Continental Shelf, Cyprus also claims the Territorial Waters as it is a state. By the way, the UK specifically uses the term “territorial seas” for the waters it claims, which is why I focus on the Cypriot claim of a Territorial Sea. In reality the Treaty of Establishment

The edits I have proposed are meant to provide a balanced view on this dispute and I still support them. No sources from the UK government can prove a Cypriot claim does not exist as one clearly does. Also note that the case of the waters is not as clear-cut as “one state owns them”. For the UK, it has full sovereignty over them (and Akrotiri and Dhekelia) but Cyprus aids it in exercising its sovereignty such as, quite possibly, by policing the territorial waters, whereas to Cyprus, the UK has retained the bases with purely military reasons in mind, which it believes to be incorrect anyway due to the rights of Sovereignty of each nation and the UN’s laws against colonies (in a similar case to the Chagos, which, on the UN vote, Cyprus confirmed Mauritius' support of and opposition to the UK), but even if the UK is allowed to keep its bases Cyprus contends it has sovereignty over them in most non-military issues which is confirmed through the relevant treaties, and it claims to have complete sovereignty over the territorial waters (“Only states can have territorial waters”). This complicated trail of recognition of sovereignty, partial sovereignty, aid, or lack of sovereignty, I believe, also clears up any questions you might have had regarding any ambiguity such as that regarding the University of Nicosia link (which is not actually exactly from that university). Also note that, seeing as both parties cooperate for the running of Akrotiri and Dhekelia and maintain cordial diplomatic relations, they naturally avoid debating with each other publicly, which definitely helps in creating ambiguity, not only regarding the Cypriot, but also the British claims. In my opinion none of the reasons I have provided give definitive proof that no Cypriot claim exists, and the occasions in which you have cited ambiguity have been answered. Regarding Akrotiri and Dhekelia, I do not wish to insist. My proposals were only advisory. However, they would be enclaves that are also exclaves if the Cypriot claim were considered correct, and therefore they should be included in the same category as the power station, unless we consider them non-sovereign. Awaiting reply, KnolGua (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bearing with me during my delay in replying. I had previously read all of the websites that you had cited, so there was no need to quote at length from them. All of those websites as a whole do not settle anything, other than confirming the inherent ambiguity. I am not saying that a Cypriot claim does not exist. Anyway, it takes two to tango, and we are not the two. Any resolution is up to the parties and the international community. Until there is a resolution, we can only cite the ambiguity by mentioning the competing claims, as is done in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of territorial disputes. (By the way, this dispute is not listed there.) No one who is a dispassionate expert in the field has published anything stating that Dhekelia Power Station or Dhekelia itself or Akrotiri are bordered by the UNCLOS territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus – not Brendan Whyte, not Evgeny Vinokurov, not the International Court of Justice, not Jan Krogh, not Yuri Rozhkov-Yuryevsky. According to Wikipedia standards, lacking published reliable third-party sources, it is not up to us to render judgment. The only option is to mention that Cyprus has staked a claim to the waters. Just fyi, several years ago I was in a similar situation as this (though for my part, admittedly weaker), making an argument for why Nunez Rocks should be considered an enclave/exclave. When presented with reasons as to why Nunez Pocks did not qualify, I reluctantly relinquished my desire to change the article as I had proposed. It's part of being in this great community.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never requested that we show bias towards one party. I was not rendering a judgement as to who owns the waters, I was providing evidence that they are claimed by Cyprus. It is clear that Cyprus would not be as open with these claims as it is heavily dependent on British aid and therefore there are less third party sources to acknowledge the Cypriot claim. If we just mention Cyprus claims the waters while implying that this claim is wrong then we are unfairly representing one party to this dispute, just because some maps show the British claim because obviously the UK would be more open about its claims. Indeed, there is evidence that criminal cases are tried by Cypriot courts in these waters, something which nobody has denied, and therefore Cyprus seems to actually effectively control the waters. Regardless, this can’t be compared to other disputes because it is completely different. Cyprus claims the UK's sovereignty over Akrotiri and Dhekelia is limited if not null, whereas the UK claims to have full sovereignty but is aided in practice by Cyprus. In reality the UK only exercises military sovereignty and policing (including trials, which apparently it does not conduct for these waters) over Akrotiri and Dhekelia, whereas, especially in the parts which do not have military encampments/bases, almost all other aspects of sovereignty are in practice exercised by Cyprus. If it just so happens that a couple of third party sources are unaware of Cyprus' extensive claims in the area that is no grounds to provide a biased view of the dispute. As far as I can tell this is not done anywhere else in the list except for a case citing “de facto” circumstances, which is very different from implying one party's correctness. No source can be cited as reliably disproving the Cypriot claim if they do not provide legal arguments against it, and, seeing the Cypriot claims, none of the sources provide replies to them. The closest would be Scovazzi, who gives the legal arguments of the UK without acknowledging Cyprus' arguments at all. By the way, I don’t think “List of Territorial Disputes” includes most maritime borders. For example, there is a dispute between Lebanon and Israel which is not included. Also, Wikipedia in general uses English speaking sources which frequently do not give information on Cypriot claims, leading to many articles pretending only the British claims exist. For example, we have undeniable evidence that Cyprus believes the UK's sovereignty is limited, but not once is this mentioned in Wikipedia. While you claim we cannot render a judgement you proceed to give your opinion why the article should be biased towards the UK claim. In reality the only case where something similar can happen in Wikipedia is wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE. This is in no way the same, as there are sources which support the Cypriot claim, which is in fact to a large degree effectively enforced. This is not an “Extraordinary Claim” as no source has provided arguments against Cyprus' arguments (“sources”) and thus it cannot be said to contain extraordinary proof. I still believe we should make a category for disputed enclaves/exclaves in order to give a balanced view on this dispute,KnolGua (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I believe Lasunncty's reply from above would count as consensus towards the creation of a category regarding disputes. There is no consensus to support a revision that would imply one party's correctness. KnolGua (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, an example of a source showing the Cypriot claims would be https://www.msp-platform.eu/countries/cyprus. In fact, Cyprus does have oil in the EEZ which would not be considered Cypriot were the UK claims to be recognised. KnolGua (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyprus claim can be mentiond without implying that it is somehow "wrong." There is nothing in the article that implies one party's correctness. What is in the article is information from independent, third-party sources. WP:IS states that sources for Wikipedia articles must be independent and third-party. An academic publication by an independent expert on the topic would be an example. On this topic, there are a number of such experts whose works are cited throughout the article. Evgeny Vinokurov is one of them. I went back to his signature 2007 book, A Theory of Enclaves, to see what he wrote. He states on page 53 and includes in his Table 2.3 ("True Enclaves"), "Ormidhia and Xylotimbou represent two Cypriot villages each surrounded by territory of the British Sovereign Base Area of Dhekelia. The Dhekelia Power Station is divided by a British road into two parts. The northern part is a true enclave, whereas the southern part is located by the sea and is therefore a semi-enclave. However, it has no territorial waters and is thus fully surrounded by the British Sovereign Base on land and sea." Brendan Whyte, a renowned dispassionate expert, has published similar findings. This is the type of third-party independent source that is required by Wikipedia. I invite you to contribute published material that meets the Wikipedia requirements of being independent and unaffiliated with the subject and having standards of peer review and fact-checking. Thus far I have not seen an independent and unaffiliated source on the topic of enclaves that explicitly states that the Dhekelia Power Station is not "an enclave that is also an exclave". (Note: the following italicized clarification appended by Jeff in CA on 14 May 2020) i.e., that Dhekelia Power Station is not of the type listed in the first table of the article.

In addition, some of these experts regularly contribute their thoughts to the Yahoo Group called Borderpoint. Yahoo Groups mailing lists still operate for these groups, even though the Yahoo repositories were shut down. I invite you to join the group and pose your concern to the borderpoint@yahoogroups.com list. I'd be willing to bet that Brendan Whyte would answer you. If anyone is aware of Cyprus' claims, they certainly include people in this group.Jeff in CA (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I think I don’t understand what you are saying. Perhaps you misunderstood me, I never said anything about exclaves which are not enclaves. I said we must edit the article to say that it is disputed whether this power station is an enclave that is also an exclave because if the British claim were to be upheld they would fall in this category but the Cypriot claim would completely negate this.

I do not wish to contact the persons you have referred to regarding this dispute or any other case. I would also like to point out that they are not experts in Cypriot law and the Cypriot status quo. Surely if Brendan Whyte had been aware of the Cypriot claim to the territorial waters, and to partial claims of sovereignty over the entire base areas, and to Cypriot claims of a criminal case regarding actions conducted in these waters having been conducted by a Cypriot court (presumably the Supreme Court, it tries such cases) he would have at least mentioned them. What he does is he explains that, based on the British claim, the area would be considered a semi-enclave. Please note that mr. Whyte says, ”it has no territorial waters,” which I believe we have well established to be the claim of the UK which is not shared by Cyprus. A detective may be an expert in identifying causes of death but they are not usually experts in criminal law, and an expert in enclaves/exclaves may be an expert in identifying enclaves/exclaves but they cannot be regarded as an expert in international or local law. I am not saying that this source is unaccountable, but that, based on already established facts (that Cyprus claims the waters), it has made a mistake.

I myself have had the fortune of having met some legal experts, having conversed with some regarding matters such as this one, but this is beyond the point.

I believe what you are saying is that we may establish that Cyprus claims the territorial waters but that we cannot say this would lead to the consideration that the Cypriot claim nullifies the existence of an enclave/exclave if it were to be upheld (of course it’s much more complicated than that but let’s keep it simple) because this is not mentioned directly in any source. That’s fine, I previously thought you were saying that we must give more weight to the British claim to the waters because it is mentioned by more third party sources, which I now know is not what you were saying. My only question is, isn’t it obvious that, according to the Cypriot claim, the area would not be an enclave/exclave? I am unsure for this, but Wikipedia:These are not original research says “Identifying synonymous terms“ is accepted, so wouldn't the term enclave/exclave (or in this case, “Potential Enclave/Exclave”) be accepted to be used based on its meaning? Please correct me if I am wrong.

So, to clear things up, my proposal was that instead of keeping the power station in the enclaves/exclaves category we create a category for potential enclaves/exclaves for cases where there are two or more claims to sovereignty and some (i.e the British) would lead to the creation of an enclave/exclave status whereas others (i.e the Cypriot claim) would lead to the creation of an undisturbed border. This category would not imply the correctness of either party as per NPOV. No source directly says that if the Cypriot claim were to be upheld then it would lead to an undisturbed sea boundary and I am asking you if we can consider the latter implication to be obvious. The source you have provided is not of much use as we have both accepted Cyprus claims the territorial waters, but the author of that citation seems to have been unaware of this. KnolGua (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake I thought by “is not an enclave that is also an exclave. ” you meant “not an enclave but is an exclave.” Anyway all my comments still apply. KnolGua (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Wikipedia articles must be independent and third-party. If the article is to be changed to say, "It is disputed whether this power station is an enclave that is also an exclave," then there must be an independent third-party source that states, "It is disputed whether this power station is an enclave that is also an exclave."

Until there is an independent third-party source that states it, there cannot be another category. In other words, as stated in WP:SYNTH, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia. Otherwise, it is improper editorial synthesis.

What we can do is add text that says Cyprus claims the territorial waters. Jeff in CA (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. KnolGua (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "CYP-MZN6-1996-00016". UN. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
^ File:הגבול הימי של ישראל.svg
^ "Agreement between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 31 March 2020.
^ "Annex II". Retrieved 31 March 2020.
^ Overseas Territories : seventh report of session 2007-08. Stationery Office. p. 158. ISBN 0215521501.
^ "House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 25 Mar 2013 (pt 0002)". publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
^ "MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Territorial Sea". www.mfa.gov.cy. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
^ "008.05.1347 Έκθεση κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής". www2.parliament.cy. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
^ "Intercol". Retrieved 30 April 2020.

Allentown

"the westernmost section of the city of Allentown is a pene-en(ex)clave connected at a quadripoint"

1) I'm not really finding this quadripoint, but my eyes aren't the best ever.

2) What I quoted just seems kind of sloppy. What is a "pene-en(ex)clave? Is there some other way to put it? YellowAries2010 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using the source referenced for that entry, the quadripoint is not visible unless you enable "Incorporated Place" under "Governmental Unit Boundaries" > "Features" in the layer list and zoom way in. As for the definition you're asking about, see the top of that section. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accompong

Accompong is an autonoumous state since 1739.^[1] Since 2009, they have an elected Head of State ^[2] and 2016 their own Monetary Authority^[3].

They also house the Headquarters for Economic 6th Region of the African Union, as recognized by the African Union ambassador to the USA.^[4]

Spiddyock (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Virginia en/exclaves

@Benuski: I could not verify the new en/exclaves you added for Virginia. Do you have a source? --Lasunncty (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulaanbaatar

@Jeff in CA: Regarding your recent edits, I'd like to share my opinion as to why I think the previous version was already correct. Because of the border between Baganuur and Khentii Province, Ulaanbaatar as a whole should not be considered an enclave of Töv Province. I think Central Ulaanbaatar and Bagakhangai should remain in the "enclaves that are also exclaves" section because they are portions of the whole. Similar examples of this in the table include Minsk, Bremen, and Tashkent. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasunncty: My recent edit was in response to someone deleting Ulaanbaatar altogether. When I attempted to restore/update the entry, I misunderstood the role of Baganuur, as well as that central Ulaabaatar consists of seven of the nine düüregs. So I agree with your assessment. Please reset to the correct version. Thanks. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I misread the history. Thanks for your response. @Luokehao: I kept your addition of Baganuur but restored central Ulaanbaatar to where it was. --Lasunncty (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-national semi-enclave vs. pene-enclave?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, the town of Petty Harbour–Maddox Cove (surrounded by St. John’s and having a seacoast) is one of the few entries in the semi-enclave section, which focuses on the national level. The similarly positioned city of Santa Monica, California (surrounded by Los Angeles and having a seacoast) is in the pene-enclave section. There may be other similar examples. What are some thoughts on the classification of these municipalities? Jeff in CA (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another similar example, which an editor just moved to the semi-exclave section, is an exclave of Tumaco in Colombia, named San Juan de la Costa, between the Pacific Ocean and the municipalities of Francisco Pizarro and Mosquera. Jeff in CA (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I attempt to resolve this by moving Santa Monica to the subnational semi-enclave section to be along-side Petty Harbour–Maddox Cove. On the other hand, I removed the exclaves within Colombia, Indonesia, and Isle of Man that were listed in the subnational semi-exclave section and placed them in the pene-enclave section. (Two of the Indonesia exclaves were already listed there as pene-enclaves.) There are numerous subnational pene-exclaves with sea access that are currently and exclusively categorized as pene-exclaves and not as semi-exclaves. Jeff in CA (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between semi- and pene-exclaves is not clear to me. If I had to guess, I would say pene-exclaves are contiguous with the rest of the territory, either via land or territorial waters, and semi-exclaves are not. Is this correct? --Lasunncty (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska

It shouldn’t be in semi-enclaves since a semi-enclave does not mean “part of a country separated from the rest of a country” Masterball2 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that’s exactly what other semi-enclaves listed in “Non-sovereign semi-enclaves” along with Alaska are. They all have unsurrounded sea territory.Jeff in CA (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Newfoundland

Would the Dominion of Newfoundland count as an exclave of Canada during the time if it being a dependent territory? CommandGenius1 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it shared a border with Canada, then no. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It shared a border with Canada. CommandGenius1 (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about it leads you to suggest it was? —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What enclaves / exclaves would these count as?

Not sure if OpenStreetMap counts as a reliable source, but I have discovered these exclaves/enclaves:

Pleckgate Road, in Ribble Valley is only accessible via a road in the Blackburn with Darwen district and entirely inaccessible via the rest of the borough of Ribble Valley - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.77336/-2.48520
Part of Wiggins Lane (named Berry House Road) is a part of Scarisbrick parish which is only accessible via Burscough or Rufford and entirely inaccessible from the rest of the Scarisbrick parish - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.63700/-2.87401, https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.63502/-2.87169 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8224286#map=14/53.6357/-2.8767
East Moor in Worsley, Salford is only accessible via Mosley Common, Tyldesley, Metropolitan Borough of Wigan = https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/53.50918/-2.42168 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/146657#map=16/53.5101/-2.4213

I do not know if these meet the criteria for reliable sources, or what to classify them as - if a more expert editor could help me, it is appreciated. SCXV1986 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Torreón

Reverted:

In Mexico, in the state of Coahuila half of the municipality of Torreón is surrounded by the municpality of Viesca on the north, and the muncipality of Tlahualilo in Durango.

As far as I can tell from OpenStreetMap, neither Viesca (which is east of Torreón) nor Tlahualilo surrounds anything. —Tamfang (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The part about being surrounded is not correct, but Torreón does appear to have an exclave: [14]. --Lasunncty (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surrounded by both Viesca and Tlahualilo, although I'm not sure whether that's very interesting given anything without a coast is surrounded by some other land areas. CMD (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tlahualilo does not even share a border with Torreón, so I just cut that info out rather than list the three or so other municipalities that do. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coastline paradox

So in this article it states: "Therefore, Vinokurov applies a quantitative principle: the land boundary must be longer than the coastline." But we have a problem here. Coasts are fractals, therefore all coasts have an infinite length. While land borders are typically well defined and do have a set length, they will always be less than the coastline because the true length of any coastline is infinite. Coastline paradox.

We need a better definition for semi-exclaves because this definition does not work. Once we have a working definition it would be nice to put the definition of all of these terms at the top of the page in a separate section for easy reference. Stidmatt (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Exclaves of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina". 26 Mar 2013. Retrieved 2013-03-28.

[2] ttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sogsa1909317/index.html

[3] ttp://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sogsa1915317/index.html

[4] For example a 1995 Geology map produced by The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (Geoscience Australia) includes this strip in Jervis Bay Territory [1] and the Shoalhaven City Council excludes the area from its land-use maps."[2]

[5] U.S. National Geodetic Survey. "NOAA Shoreline Data Explorer". Retrieved 2015-04-10.

[fn1-6] Gray, David H. (Autumn 1997). "Canada's Unresolved Maritime Boundaries" (PDF). IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin. p. 61. Retrieved 2015-03-21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)

[7] "International Boundary Commission definition of the Canada/US boundary in the NAD83 CSRS reference frame". Retrieved 2015-03-21.

[8] White, James (1914). Boundary Disputes and Treaties. Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company. pp. 936–958.

[9] Davidson, George (1903). The Alaska Boundary. San Francisco: Alaska Packers Association. pp. 79–81, 129–134, 177–179, 229.

[10] "CYP-MZN6-1996-00016". UN. Retrieved 1 April 2020.

[11] File:הגבול הימי של ישראל.svg

[12] "Agreement between the Government of the State of Israel and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone" (PDF). United Nations. Retrieved 31 March 2020.

[13] "Annex II". Retrieved 31 March 2020.

[14] Overseas Territories : seventh report of session 2007-08. Stationery Office. p. 158. ISBN 0215521501.

[15] "House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 25 Mar 2013 (pt 0002)". publications.parliament.uk. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

[16] "MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Territorial Sea". www.mfa.gov.cy. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

[17] "008.05.1347 Έκθεση κοινοβουλευτικής επιτροπής". www2.parliament.cy. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

[18] "Intercol". Retrieved 30 April 2020.

[19] ttp://www.jnht.com/site_accompong.php

[20] ttps://www.accompong-gov.org/accompong-head-of-state

[21] ttps://www.accompong-gov.org/bank-of-accompong

[22] ttps://www.accompong-gov.org/maroon-legacy

[a]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]