Talk:Rockall/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Not an island?

Hi Varnebank. An islet is an island by reliable definitions of the term. If you don't believe me, please look up the term, or I can provide you with references. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then, +1 to "islet" since everyone should be happy with it. Or am I missing something? --Tóraí (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why we can't have a pronoun, 'it', in the second sentence. There can be no ambiguity about what it is. Rothorpe (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí, Varnebank wants to remove 'island' from the second sentence of the introduction because he believes it's incorrect to refer to an islet as an 'island'.

Rothorpe, I think it's more literate to state what it is. Also, since apparently not everybody knows islets are islands, it's probably a good idea to clarify this.

Rob (talk | contribs) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Rothorpe (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"...apparently not everybody knows islets are islands,..." We're not here to clarify that for anyone in this article. "It" or "Rockall" is sufficient for the second sentence, if people can't agree on "island" or "islet".

More serious though is the lack of NPOV in the second sentence: "[Rockall] is the westernmost point of the United Kingdom, situated 460 km west of Great Britain"? Which I'll attend to now. --Tóraí (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Going by Google define, an islet is not just an island but a small island. Is this a relatively small island? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

More substantial than "island" vs "islet", apparently, is the question of whether it is an "island" at all (as someone might understand the word). Uninhabitable rocks and skerries are excluded from the calculation of exclusive economic zones. And that is central to the international dispute over Rockall. I think we need to be careful about what we refer to Rockall as. --Tóraí (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that using the word 'island' gives a sense of 'inhabitability' to what is basically not a habitable place. This has implications regarding claims. It is not insignificant that the claim by the UK Government refers to 'the island of Rockall'. Which I don't think it is. I agree with Torai to the extent that there are NPOV elements to be watched out for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting how St Peter and St Paul Rocks are now called an 'archipelago', Brazil has no rivals to its claim but someone seems to have felt 'rocks' didn't sound so good. The Brazilians maintain an apparently permanent research station there, which apart from any scientific value also could be said to make them seem 'habitable'. But they are still rocks. Also interesting is Okinotorishima, where the Japanese have constructed platforms on an almost submerged atoll. http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/10/okinotorishimaisland/ Varnebank (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Rob984

In response to your initial comment, there's no POV. The Irish state does not claim Rockall (contrary to what many of its citizens may think). Nor does your source suggest otherwise. It states 'In 1988, Ireland and the UK reached agreement on the delimitation of areas of the continental shelf between the two countries... ...According to that determination, Rockall is situated to the north of the boundary agreed with the UK in 1988 and lies outside the zone claimed by Ireland.' As far as any reliable sources show, Rockall is an undisputed island that is part of the United Kingdom. All that is disputed, is the claims to the Hatton-Rockall shelf, and whether Rockall has any infulence on the UK's claim.

In response to your latter comment, I think 'granite islet' is most ideal for the initial description, as it concisely describes Rockall as a small granite rock island; however as far as I'm aware, throughout the article, 'island', 'islet', and 'rock' are all acceptable. I was only contending changing 'island' in the second sentence because it was comparing Rockall to another island, thus is more appropriate then 'rock' or 'islet' in that instance. Most, if not all reliable definitions of 'islets', agree that they are a type of island.

I don't contend stating that Rockall is a key point of the dispute on claim of the Hatton-Rockall shelf in the introduction, however stating that the Irish state does not recognise the UK's claim to Rockall, is simply incorrect.

Rob (talk | contribs) 15:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: your comment above and your revert here:

Ireland doesn't claim Rockall. The UK does. However, Ireland has not recognised the UK's claim. See the source provided:

"The United Kingdom claims sovereignty over Rockall ... Ireland has not recognised British sovereignty over Rockall..."

Can it get any clearer that that?

Furthermore, the source continues to explain that Ireland doesn't see ownership of Rockall as irrelevant to the dispute:

"The consistent position of successive Irish Governments has been that Rockall and similar rocks and skerries have no significance for establishing legal claims to mineral rights in the adjacent seabed and to fishing rights in the surrounding seas."

Thus, the first paragraph is lacking in neutrality because:

(a) it gives the impression that the UK's claim is recognised; and

(b) it gives the impression that the UK's claim is relevant (or even paramount) to the issues surrounding Rockall.

Similar one-sided views (and over-representation) of the UK's claim over Rockall, and the substance of the dispute around Rockall, occurred further in the introduction, which you re-instated.

You also re-instated the following statement: "Although Ireland has not disputed Britain's title to the islet internationally, she has on occasion for internal nationalistic purposes, claimed to own the rock."

As evidence for this material, the following source is given: "Written Answers. – Rockall Island". Dáil debates. Dáil Éireann. 22 May 1985. Retrieved 26 July 2009.

Since you re-instated this statement, and supposed reference, can you explain how this source supports the statement? --Tóraí (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The source states that the Irish state does not recognise the UK's sovereignty over Rockall. By this it is clearly implying that it does not recognise the UK's territorial claim, compromising of Rockall, and territorial waters claim, compromising of 12 nautical miles around the island. However in recognising that the UK's EEZ includes Rockall, it is, (by definition of sovereignty) recognising limited UK sovereignty over the island, and therefore recognising that Rockall is part of the UK. Since the Irish state does not dispute that Rockall is part of the UK (nor do your sources imply it does), the statement is correct. Including that the Irish state doesn't recognise the UK's territorial claim to the island, and territorial waters claim to the surround waters, would be correct; however stating that 'The United Kingdom claims the feature as the westernmost point of the United Kingdom, situated 460 km west of Great Britain. This claim, however, is not recognised by Ireland.' is incorrect, and not implied by the source provided.

Regarding your last point, I agree the statements not correct; however, clearly a discussion on the precise terminology is required.

Rob (talk | contribs) 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The second sentence refers to the annexation of Rockall. It is exactly that annexation that Ireland does not recognise. Two sources, both Dáil answers from Irish government ministers, have been provided stating that Ireland has not recognised the UK's claim. So it is not appropriate to present the claimed annexation as accepted.

As to the agreement on the division of the Hatton-Rockall area, Ireland and the UK may be in agreement about that, but the 2011 Dáil answer linked to states that Denmark and Iceland do not recognize it. So trying to worm the claim in through that door, equally meets with non-acceptance. --Tóraí (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it's been annexed along with the rest of the UK's EEZ, which the Irish state recognises. On your latter point, the source is referring to the 500 nautical mile continental shelf claims, which currently are disputed, however the 200 nautical mile claims (of which Rockall is within) is undisputed. Additionally, the British Government believes no other state disputes it's claim to Rockall, along with it's EEZ. British Government FOI request. The Irish government appears to contradict its self, and the British Government. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source from the Icelandic government regarding EEZ and continental shelf claims. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"Well it's been annexed along with the rest of the UK's EEZ, which the Irish state recognises." Being within the EEZ of state is not the same as being annexed to it. As your FOI sources points out, if Rockall is part of the UK then the UK has sovereign air space above it, for example. The UK "claims" this to be the case (as the FOI document states). What it carefully neglects to mention is that no-one else has accepted it.

There is a particular play on words happening here. The UK FOI request states, "No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." That does not mean any other state has recognised it. As the 2012 and 1985 Irish sources make clear: "Ireland has not recognised British sovereignty over Rockall".

The Icelandic source you link to above says nothing about the UK's claim to Rockall. I don't know why you linked to it. --Tóraí (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring the the map on the Icelandic source. Regardless, the Irish source is clearly states it's referring to continental Shelf, not EEZ. There are many features of sovereignty that states posses over there EEZ, so for the Irish government to recognise the UK's undisputed EEZ covering Rockall, but not it's sovereignty doesn't make sense. Irish position further doesn't make sense, since according the the UNCLOS, islands don't exist within EEZ, as this only covers sea. According to UNCLOS, islands have 12NM of territorial sea, however since the Irish state doesn't recognise any claim to Rockall, it simply treats it as a unclaimed enclave within the UK's EEZ. I really don't see the point in including the Irish state's position in the introduction, since it's clearly nonsensical. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you were referring to the map, you should have looked at it more closely. On it, the Icelandic and Faroese claims overlap the British and Irish claims.

It makes entire sense to dispute the UK's claim to Rockall but accept the EEZ. (And this is pertinent to the question of whether Rockall is an "island" — or "islet" — too, BTW) See the Symmons source:

"[Rockall's] sole legal importance now for the UK which, as seen, has reiterated its title to it is that it remains in a technical sense an 'island' and therefore continues to generate a territorial sea. ...
...Ireland still disputes British ownership of the Rock and the status of its immediately surrounding 12-mile enclave it..."

Whether Rockall is an integral part of the UK (and so generates territorial waters) is the remaining substance of the dispute between Ireland and the UK. --Tóraí (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing EEZ and continental shelf claims. Icelandic and Faroese continental shelf claims overlap with the UK's, however there EEZ does not. Rockall is within the UK's EEZ. The only state supposable disputing the UK's claim to Rockall is Ireland. Under the Convention, a 'rock' has a 12 mile territorial sea. An unclaimed rock has nothing, but is still not part of any EEZ. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There are various overlapping issues: territorial waters, the EEZ, and rights to the sea bed. The differences are clear in my mind.

But, what we are discussing is your revert. In that revert you removed three changes:

1. You removed a sourced statement which said that the UK's claim to Rockall is not recognized by Ireland. We appear to be inching towards you accepting that the claim is not in fact recognised by Ireland?
2. You reverted a refactoring to the effect that the substance of the dispute today relates to claims to do with the continental shelf and that ownership uninhabitable rocks, such as Rockall, are seen as immaterial to such issues. This was also referenced (and is further supported by the Symmon reference).
3. You re-inserted a POV statement from the British government, which presented the UK's claim to own Rockall as a bald statement of fact.
4. You reinserted an extraordinary claim that was cited to a reference which did not support it.

Now, I think we're getting somewhere on issue 1. You appear to be accepting the Symmons reference more than when the message was being given to you from the horses mouth, so to speak. That should do something to twig you off that maybe 3 should be reconsidered as not entirely neutral after all. I think you're good on 4, as well?

So, is there something about 2 that disturbs you still? --Tóraí (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah. Rockall has nothing to do with EEZ. The UK is not claiming Rockall has any EEZ, and therefore the statement 'The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.' is incorrect. I also simply don't think the wording used in the edit you made is adequate. The UK does own Rockall, what's debated is whether it's integrated UK territory, or only part of the UK's EEZ. The dispute surrounding Rockall is whether it gives the UK a claim to the Rockall area of continental shelf, as it would be the only state to have territory on the plateau; however I don't believe the UK is perusing a claim based upon this. This is also presumably why the Irish state does not recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory. Stating that the UK claim 'is not recognised by Ireland' is too vague. The Irish state partially recognises UK sovereignty of the island, as it recognises the UK's EEZ. Possibly stating that Ireland doesn't recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory or similar would be more specific? Rob (talk | contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.

Ahh ... this isn't what I meant by (2) but, yes, this was incorrect – or at least outdated. The UK previously used Rockall as an claim to extend its EEZ but effectively gave up on that when it ratified UNCLOS. Like other participants, it has shifted onto continental self based claim (claiming Rockall is an physical extension of Scotland), as far as I understand. I'm be happy to see that corrected.

On the question of "ownership" (i.e. Rockall being a part of the UK, being annexed to the UK, or the UK having sovereignty over it, etc.), like every source says, the UK "claims" ownership (i.e. "claims" it is part of the UK). Ireland, for one, doesn't recognise that claim. I don't know if anyone does, whatever play of words the UK may come up to spin it otherwise.

Being inside a state's EEZ is not the same as "ownership". If Rockall was part of the UK, for example, then the UK could prevent ships passing within 12nm of it or prevent planes from flying overhead. If Rockall is just a feature within the UK's EEZ then it cannot prevent ships from passing it or planes from flying overhead.

I'm going to make another stab at fixing these issues and redressing the UK-centric bias. Part of that will be fixing the error you pointed out above. Thanks for it. --Tóraí (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, the UK has imposed a 12m restriction for shipping around Rockall Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's based on its claim of ownership. Ireland doesn't recognise that claim. In theory, it could be a 12nm Irish enclave within the UK's EEZ. Or it could be no-ones and just open seas within the UK's EEZ. --Tóraí (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

UK Government's statement

I've added back the UK Government's statement:

"The islet of Rockall is part of the UK: specifically it forms part of Scotland under the Island of Rockall Act 1972. No other state has disputed our claim to the islet."

This is just the British position Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Grand. I removed it only because it laboured the point on one side only.

I don't want to (because I feel it labours the issue) but if a British Government statement appears in the lead then for neutrality an Irish government statement on the matter would also need to appear. From a quick Google, possibly a plain and direct response such as this would be most appropriate:

"The United Kingdom continues to claim jurisdiction over Rockall, but this claim is not accepted by Ireland. Each country remains aware of the continuing position of the other."

--Tóraí (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"so what if it doesn't recognise the British ownership"

Brookie,

Could you explain how your edit here reflect policy on a neutral point of view: "Clained for the uk - rem guff about Ireland - so what if it doesn't recognise the British ownership"

Rockall was claimed by the UK in 1955. Ireland doesn't recognise that. Now, that may upset you. Or you may think it is "guff". But it's not our place to judge. In reality, it's no big deal.

The first paragraph of the article says who claims ownership of the feature. But a neighbouring state doesn't recognize that claim. RS dealing the question of ownership of Rockall make a point that they do not. It's a significant matter affecting the neutrality of any statement we make regarding who owns the rock. And we must present matters neutrally.

We cannot present just one POV as fact. We must present both. And do so neutrally. --Tóraí (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken - my point perhaps not well stated was that for instance, Peru or Chile might not recognise it either, but that wouldn't go in there! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 15:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a territorial dispute though. Essentially the Irish state doesn't recognise the amount of British sovereignty over Rockall as the UK. I'm not even sure the UK's claim, or Ireland's objection need to be presented in the lead; hence my edit. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually liking Rob's rewrite (with obvious bias removed!) very much. I think the issue of ownership needs mention in the lead - but it's actually not very important. So I think leaving the issue to the end of the lead is good. --Tóraí (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup - happy with that! :) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"on the basis of uncertain ownership of the rock"

@Brookie:

Regarding, this edit, that is exactly what the source says (save for an exchange of the word "ownership" for "title").

What I wrote was: "The UK's claim to territorial waters around Rockall is disputed by Ireland on the basis of uncertain ownership of the rock."

What the source says is: "Ireland explicitly rules out the rock from even generating a 12-mile territorial sea for the UK on the basis of the uncertain title to the rock."

Could you self revert. I think we're doing a lot of reverting of each other today and I'd prefer we were decent and reverted ourselves when we err. --Tóraí (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It also says "In terms of ownership, the rock is undeniably British; and none of the other disputants has actually laid any claim to it." so not entirely clear - have self reverted for the sake of good order! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 16:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

That paragraph in Symmons is funny. It kind of mutters from, It's undeniably Britsh!; to, No-one else has laid claim to it; to, Certainly, Iceland and Denmark aren't complaining, to OK .. so the Irish deny it's British. That's quite a maneuver for a short paragraph. :-)

It's an excellent article but the writer doesn't go to great lengths to hide his bias. Though he doesn't necessarily allow it to guide his judgement either, which is very good IMO. (There's also a bit of a flourish in the conclusion that might as well read, "Nah nah nah nah nah! You can't stop us!", which brings a curl to the side of my lips.) --Tóraí (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Spin out seabed dispute material?

As the Symmons article points out, since 1997, Rockall isn't of significance to the dispute between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK to do with seabed rights around it. As a consequence, reading through the article, I think most of what is in the "History and conflicting claims to underwater rights" section actually belongs in a separate article.

That new article would deal with the claims to do with various continental shelves and submissions under UNCLOS. This article could focus on Rockall itself. A summary of the seabed dispute could remain, but the bulk would be spun out.

What do others think?

I'm not sure what we would call this new? Just a descriptive title like: Rockall area seabed dispute?

--Tóraí (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sensible - the article is feeling rather cluttered --Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 09:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - while the dispute is one of the more notable issues about the rock, both the level of editor dialogue and the volume of text has become somewhat WP:UNDUE. I suggest Rockall Bank dispute as a slightly less cumbersome title. See Japan–Korea disputes#Geographic disputes for a couple of examples - and also Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute and associated material for a salutary warning from Arbcom about the need for continuing good faith when editing articles of this nature. Ben MacDui 13:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Tóraí (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Denmark

I see some recent discussion on the ownership issue. I find some of the arguments here difficult to follow. The end of the lead "No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." while this is in the reference - is incorrect and misleading, and should be dropped or amended - it can be explored later on. The real dispute between nations is between the UK and Ireland on one side and Iceland and Denmark on the other side. There is no real dispute between Ireland and the UK. The UK submission to the UN Law of the Sea acknowledges assistance from Ireland in preparing the UK case. There are differences between the UK and Ireland on issues such as ownership of the rock, but this issue is not important and does not deserve the prominence it gets here. The important dispute is over the limits of the continental shelf. Iceland and Denmark claim that any claims by the UK or Ireland must terminate where the seabed drops down at the Rockall Basin. There are precedents elsewhere which support that opinion. If so then neither the UK nor Ireland have any rights on the Rockall Bank. The coverage of the dispute misses the point. ClemMacGána (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Snce 1997, Rockall is irrelevant in the dispute between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK over extended continental shelf claims. Why would we put emphasis on that matter here? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. Raising Rockall is in the UK eez so early implies that it is of importance.

The overlapping eez claims remain. This icelandic map [1] used to feature in this article and the Danish map on age 8 of [2] show the competing eez claims. Iceland and Denmark maintain that the UK and Ireland are only entitled to 200 nautical miles of eez, and cannot claim further, as that is beyond the continental shelf. (Rockall is 198.1 nmi from North Uist, and so inside the UK eez). Denmark maintains that since the Faroes are on the Faroe-Rockall Plateau, they own it. Iceland makes a similar claim. ClemMacGána (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rockall is not within the overlapping claims, so how is it relevant? The UK's 200 nautical miles EEZ is undisputed. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See this map which shows the current agreed EEZ between the 4 states, showing Rockall within the UK's EEZ. It is the extended continental shelf claims that are disputed. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the rock is 198.1 nmi from North Uist, The agreed UK EEZ is 200 nmi, so it lies within the UK EEZ. That is not disputed. My point is that this fact is irrelevant to the real dispute of overlapping EEZs. Putting this irrelevant fact in the lead implies that it is of importance. Which in turn leads to other errors.. such as: (next para) ClemMacGána (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i misread your comment. Anyway, this article isn't about the dispute over overlapping EEZs, it's about a island within the UK's EEZ. The dispute is covered at Rockall Bank dispute. That Britain exercises exclusive rights over the island is fairly significant surely? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be significant if it could be the basis of a claim. As it is a bare rock, incapable of sustaining life, it cannot support any claim. ClemMacGána (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. States can still claim rocks incapable of sustaining life (and the surrounding 12 nautical miles of water) as part of their territory. They just can't base a claim beyond 12 nautical miles on these rocks. Nonetheless, it's within the UK's EEZ. If you remove the UK territorial claim (since it's disputed by Ireland), then it's a marine resource, and the UK has special rights over the exploration and use of the Rock. A country which has special rights over the exploration and use of the island should be noted. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

the rock is geologically part of the United Kingdom

The problem with this statement is that it is not true. The rock, from a geological perspective, is on the Faroe-Rockall Plateau. Denmark has stressed this point in their EEZ claim.

The Faroe Islands Basalt Group is part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province and was formed by extrusive and intrusive volcanic activity prior to and during continental breakup leading to the formation of the North Atlantic Ocean in early Cenozoic times, approximately 55 million years ago. The offshore continuation of the Faroe Islands Basalt Group covers large parts of the Faroe-Rockall Plateau. In addition, a distinct geomorphological and geological feature of the Southern Continental Margin of the Faroe Islands is a continuous rim of contourite drifts,

The article says: "Establishing that the rock is geologically part of the United Kingdom ... ...reinforced the UK Government's position with regard to seabed rights in the area." The reality is that it is geologically part of the Faroes, an argument used to reinforce Denmark's claim! Can we try to fix the article ? ClemMacGána (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed 'geologically' from the two statements. Historically, the UK used there claim to Rockall to reinforce there claim to seabed rights. They no longer do. Not sure what else needs changing? Rob (talk | contribs) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

it is a start. various other mechanisms, such as acts of parliment, or landing on the rock to establishing eez rights are wrong - they don't establish or reinforce claims. ClemMacGána (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If it states that they do, then change it. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the political wranglings that are described above, it's nonsensical to say that something is geologically part of a nation! Nations (like the United Kingdom) are political entities, they're not physical. Of course, Rockall may (or not) be geologically part of the British Isles. Generally speaking, if you don't know the difference between the UK and the British Isles then you shouldn't be making contentious edits. My 2 penneth. nagualdesign (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? I assume whoever wrote about Rockall being geographically part of the UK, did so by mistake, as the rest of the section is well written. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported conclusions in regards to Ireland

There are many sources for Ireland's position on the rock, but most of what is stated is nonsense. I've removed much, if not all of it. Most statements were based on information in the sources, while evidently drawing unsupported conclusions. I suspect it's intentional, consider the state of the article last year. Please keep to sources. EEZ has had nothing to do with Rockall since 1997. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and thus irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones

Tóraí, this is not stated in the sources, neither does it make much sense. The fact that they do not believe it has 'rights' (as the source states) to territorial waters, does not effect whether it would have EEZ. It wouldn't have EEZ either way. It's a rock. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even need to clarify that. Can you tell me where it states in the source that Ireland regards the rock as 'irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones' because it is an 'uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters'? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That was an accident. I was reading through the changes you made an must have edited an old revision. --Tóraí (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "thus" in the sentence should be removed, in which case it can be supported by the Symmons article:

"Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and thus irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones."

It should be put in historical context, however. Historically, the UK held the position that it was relevant when determining the EEZ. Since 1997, as you say, the UK has acquiesced to this position also (by signing the LOSC). And the UK still claims that it generates a territorial water. --Tóraí (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I've split the sentence into two and placed them with more relevant information in the section as the historical context wasn't clear. The EEZ boundaries is only really relevant in historical context though, and so that could do with being expanded. The terminology I have used for Ireland's position on territorial sea around the rock is how it is worded in the source. There is more information about why Ireland rejects the claim in the source (fishing rights, etc) which could also be added. Being frank however, I have no interest in expanding on Ireland's peculiar position on a rock in the Atlantic. I'm just removing the nonsense that has been there for god knows how long. Rob (talk | contribs) 21:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No probs at all. BTW I'm in the process of paring down the UK section. It's long, repetitive and argumentative. It can be simplified a lot without losing anything. --Tóraí (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading it, the correct (and supported) statement is: "Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and thus irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones." Rocks count towards territorial waters, but not EEZ. --Tóraí (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/1995/05/23/00032.asp --Tóraí (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proximities

"Rockall is nearer by some 31.15 kilometres (19.36 mi) to the County Donegal coastline in Ireland than to Invernesshire in Scotland."

Actually, no it's not: see the Inverness-shire article. As can be seen, Inverness-shire, which actually no longer exists as a political entity, contains islands including the Uists which are closer to Rockall than Donegal is. Also, if I've read the rest of the article correctly, the UK officially incorporated Rockall in what was then Inverness-shire.

What the member of the Dáil said was: "The significant fact is that the island is 300 miles west of Scotland and 250 miles north-west of the coast of Donegal." It's not clear what part of Scotland he was using as a reference, but presumably it was somewhere on the mainland such as Ardnamurchan Point.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (300 miles from Rockall lands at a spot in between Coll and Ardnamurchan Point ... parts of Skye, all but the northernmost parts of the Outer Hebrides, Rum, Coll, Tiree and the St. Kilda Group are significantly closer. In fact, the closest point of Northern Ireland to Rockall is 300 miles.)

I don't see how some incorrect statement by an Irish politician is relevant. It's just misleading. We could add that the statement is incorrect, but I don't think it's relevant here that there is an Irish politician that doesn't know the difference between Scotland, and the Scottish mainland. We could add which parts of Great Britain and the mainland of the Republic of Ireland are closest to Rockall, and there distances to the rock, but a politician probably isn't a reliable source in this instance. Someone could simply figure it out on Google Maps, but a reliable source would be preferred. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Before my edits, the article was both using the Irish deputy's statement of fact (though clearly it was not a reliable source) and had misrepresented it. I tried to correct that. At the end of the day, though, I agree that statement is fairly irrelevant. What the article really needs is a statement of the official Irish position.     ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The figures in the lead are from Google Maps, rounded to two significant figures. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But where were you measuring from and what is meant by Great Britain, an ambiguous term? Obviously, even excluding the St. Kilda Group and the Flannan's, the nearest point of the United Kingdom is a lot closer to Rockall than 290 miles. If you're going to exclude the long island chain of the Outer Hebrides, are you going to include or exclude, say, Skye which is closer than 290 miles to Rockall, an island certainly, but one separated from the Scottish mainland by a narrow gulf which is crossed by a shortish bridge? Perhaps two or three figures should be given (as lower down in the article), perhaps one to the nearest bit of UK territory (Soay), one to the nearest part of the Outer Hebrides and one to the nearest bit of the Scottish mainland.     ←   ZScarpia   21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As a point of comparison, using marine chartplotter software I get the following rough rhumbline distances of Rockall from other places (nautical miles and statute miles):

• 233NM, 268M - Donegal, Ireland
• 250NM, 288M - Ardnamurchan Point, Scotland
• 222NM, 256M - Skye, Scotland
• 205NM, 236M - Outer Hebrides, Scotland
• 164NM, 189M - St. Kilda, Scotland

    ←   ZScarpia   08:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating something I said above, Great Britain is an ambiguous term: readers would be in doubt whether you were using it in the strictest sense (i.e. only the main island), or a broader one (i.e. including offshore islands). Also, readers would be left to wonder which part of the coast is being measured from (some readers will assume you're measuring due eastwards). Also, sometimes Skye, which is closer to Rockall than the distance given is sometimes treated as part of the mainland since the separation is small and it is now connected to the mainland by a bridge. Personally, I would never use an expression such as west of Scotland, east of England let alone west of Great Britain, I'd use a more precise point as a base.     ←   ZScarpia   22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Conventional use of the term 'Great Britain' refers to the island alone. It's not ambiguous in the context. Skye and Great Britain are two separate islands. Great Britain and Rockall are 460 km apart. Comparing Rockall to two major islands, and then a group of small islands makes no sense. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase 'Great Britain' is used to refer to a state as well as an island. Therefore it is ambiguous (which is why the article on Great Britain starts with diambiguation text: "This article is about the island. For the modern state, see United Kingdom. For the historical state, see Kingdom of Great Britain. For other uses, see Great Britain (disambiguation) and Britain (disambiguation)"). I take it the that the Lead is trying to establish where exactly Rockall is. The Outer Hebrides, unlike the mainland coast, are clearly defined, lie on an axis and are much shorter. Therefore, the area that Rockall lies in is much more obvious using an area such as the Outer Hebrides to measure from. If you actually specified where on the coastline you were measuring from, it wouldn't be so bad, but so far you haven't you haven't answered that question.     ←   ZScarpia   22:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (Skye and Great Britain are two islands connected by a bridge and only a quarter of a mile apart at the narrowest point.)

The closest point on Great Britain to Rockall is Ardnamurchan Point, but I don't understand why we need to state that in the lead. Also, 'Ireland' and 'Iceland' are equally ambiguous, however the context is clearly referring to islands. You could add 'island of' before each if you're concerned. I don't understand how multiple islands scattered across an area are a good point of reference? Rob (talk | contribs) 22:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why not be more precise and say that Rockall is 290M from Ardnamurchan Point, the closest part of island Great Britain? I doubt anybody living in Scotland would express distances to any of the islands west of the Hebrides as distances from the mainland coast unless it was a distance from a helipad or something similar; to do so from an unknown point on the coast seems extremely bizarre (and in UK terms Rockall is supposed to be part of Scotland). "I don't understand how multiple islands scattered across an area are a good point of reference?" So you think that the amorphous, long coastline of Great Britain is a better reference that a linear set of islands which are closer to Rockall?     ←   ZScarpia   23:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Although I would say Ireland and Iceland are more "ambiguous" than Great Britain (i.e. there is no state actually called Great Britain, whereas Ireland and Iceland are the names of states).

More importantly, the mainlands involved are Ireland, Iceland and Great Britain. Dramatically less people are going to know where the Outer Hebrides are. While they are larger islands, they are the equivalent in this case to Tory and Surtsey.

Adding the closest inhabited island makes for a good compromise, however, in my opinion. And it's a pertinent fact. --Tóraí (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, people do use the terms 'Great Britain' and 'Britain' synonymously with the UK and, I'd say, more people will think the Lead is referring to the UK rather than the island of Great Britain. You could refer to 'the island of Great Britain' to remove some of the ambiguity though. Before making comparisons between the Outer Hebrides and places like Tory Island, both places I've been to, you should read up on the former. Let's try this: Stornoway: population 9000; Tory Island: population 133; Donegal Town: population 2607; Lifford: population 1658; Killybegs: population 1297. Tory Island: "the island is approximately 5 km (3 mi) long and 1 km (0.6 mi) wide." The Outer Hebrides: "From Barra Head to the Butt of Lewis is roughly 210 kilometres (130 mi)." Donegal: area 4,841 km2. The Outer Hebrides: area 3,070 km2. Do have a look at the map displayed in the article and see whether the Outer Hebrides don't stand out like a sore thumb. I would have thought that the point of the Lead is actually as much to do with establishing where Rockall is as to do with establishing how close it is to other places, but, in any case, why the need to use mainland as your point of reference? Obviously, the UK rests its sovereignty case on the proximity to St. Kilda, which, despite what you say above is the closest inhabited place to Rockall (I've been there too ... don't go there if you're looking for solitude as there are quite a lot of people about). Ireland rests its sovereignty claim on its mainland being closer to Rockall. From a Scottish perspective, that makes no sense as its islands enclose a large area. Norway is a more extreme example as it has an even larger expanse of islands down its coast which it would be very strange to ignore if, say, calculating its distance from the UK. So, why exactly is it necessary to use the distance to a point such as Ardnamurchan when there are large chunks of land intervening between there and Rockall?     ←   ZScarpia   23:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (If you're going to use Ardnamurchan Point as a reference, hopefully you'll have figured out that Rockall isn't west of it).

St Kilda is uninhabited.

Rockall is west of Ardnamurchan Point.

The Outer Hebrides are not a 'linear set of islands'. They are scattered across a vast area. What point in the Outer Hebrides do we use as a point of reference? St Kilda? I'm not sure how the Outer Hebrides are more 'clearly defined' then Great Britain. Great Britain is a well known island which is why it's used for comparison. Most readers probably know where Great Britain, Ireland and Iceland are, and therefore the introduction gives a good idea of the location of Rockall. In my opinion, your change doesn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 09:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you have to refer to the mainland, why not refer to 'the British mainland' rather than Great Britain? That removes the ambiguity over what you mean by Great Britain.

If the reference to North Uist is going to be left in the first paragraph, it should be referred to as the closest permanently inhabited land.

If you travelled or lived in the area in question, I think you would understand the realities of the geography and the perspective from which I'm arguing (Wikipedia contains a few diagrams which might help you, such as: [3], [4] -- note how un-island-like some of those islands are and ask yourself how relevant using Ardnamurchan Point to measure from is).

On St. Kilda "currently, the only year-round residents are military personnel; a variety of conservation workers, volunteers and scientists spend time there in the summer months." Not being permanently inhabited doesn't make it uninhabited. Do buy some mugs in the gift shop if you visit, they're rather good.

"Rockall is west of Ardnamurchan Point." Not if you're trying to get there or accurately locate it it isn't.

"The Outer Hebrides are not a 'linear set of islands'. But the Outer Hebrides island chain is (I was choosing my words carefully). "They are scattered across a vast area." Don't try to take a boat through without checking a chart (safer overall to go round the ends). On the 130 mile "island chain" you may be surprised to find how short the ferry crossings are and how many of the islands are joined by roads.

"Great Britain is a well known island ... ." 'Great Britain' is probably more widely thought of as a state which includes more than just the island of Great Britain.

"And therefore the introduction gives a good idea of the location of Rockall." If the map diagram wasn't there, the description given in the Lead would be utterly worthless (How should the locations of Ireland and the Isle of Man be described? 12 and 30 miles west of Great Britain respectively? -- those are the distances between the closest points of land).

    ←   ZScarpia   10:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's irrelevant the precise location of Ardnamurchan Point, it's 460 km west of the whole of Great Britain.

I've already said, call it the 'island of Great Britain' if you must. Many articles do. I think the context makes it clear, but I wouldn't contend adding 'island of', as long as the same is done to for Ireland and Iceland. By what you're saying, 'island of Great Britain' is surely clearer then 'British mainland' since some other islands are apparently also sometimes considered part of the British mainland?

The 'Outer Hebrides island chain' is different to the 'Outer Hebrides'? And you're telling me this is less confusing then the apparent 'Great Britain'–'British mainland' ambiguity?

I don't see how referring the the Outer Hebrides gives the reader a significantly better idea of the location of Rockall. By stating that it is north-west of Ireland and west of Great Britain, we have narrowed down the latitude of Rockall as between the north most point of Ireland, and the north most point of Great Britain. Stating that it is west of the 'Outer Hebrides island chain' narrows the latitude down further. But it's really not necessary, and I doubt all readers will know what the Outer Hebrides island chain is.

The point of the introduction is to give a general idea of the location of the island that all readers are likely to understand. Referring to the Outer Hebrides island chain, as oppose to Great Britain, simply doesn't achieve this.

Rob (talk | contribs) 16:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

All those people who don't understand where the Outer Hebrides are will be lost by the next sentence which mentions North Uist and those same Hebrides then won't they (good job there are things called Wikilinks)? I've changed the text to read 'British mainland', my preference (exactly which islands are included in the British mainland which aren't part of Great Britain and does it matter?), and changed the punctuation to standard British English usage of commas.     ←   ZScarpia   21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to re-add the Oxford comma. I was removing it again when we had an edit conflict. No objection to "island of Great Britian", if you really think clarification is needed. --Tóraí (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

"British mainland" would imply that Rockall is British and is even more ambiguous than any other term there. (Why would Northern Ireland not be regarded as British mainland relative to Rockall, for example?)

As for the Outer Hebrides being a helpful reference point, only one in three Americans can locate Great Britain on a map, and only one in four can identify Ireland ... but the Outer Hebrides?

As things stand, all references points are given, starting with the three most likely to be known. --Tóraí (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps those same Americans would be highly unlikely to know that the definition of Great Britain you're using excludes all the islands wouldn't they? How often do you hear Northern Ireland being referred to as part of the British mainland?     ←   ZScarpia   21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

About as often as I hear Rockall is 460km west of the British mainland :-P

Seriously, about "coast" though, I think that's a step backwards again. I mean, it's in 400-odd KM out to sea. Of course it's off the coast. --Tóraí (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

To re-iterate: the term Great Britain is ambiguous, which is why, as I pointed out above, the Great Britain article uses the following disambiguation text: "This article is about the island. For the modern state, see United Kingdom. For the historical state, see Kingdom of Great Britain. For other uses, see Great Britain (disambiguation) and Britain (disambiguation)". So, the term is used to refer to the whole UK as well as the main island of the UK. If you are going to insist on using the ambiguous term 'Great Britain', then you need to find a method of indicating that the distance is measured from the mainland. If you like, revert back to referring to 'the island of Great Britain' rather than 'the Coast of Great Britain'. Or find an alternative solution. But get rid of the ambiguity. Funny that you were happy with using Inverness-shire as a datum, incorrectly used and incorrectly spelled, but you object to the use of the Outer Hebrides because Americans might have difficulty knowing where they are.     ←   ZScarpia   02:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A great many words and phrases in the English language have simultaneous meanings. Readers of English are accustomed to this. Avoiding words simply because they are "ambiguous" in this way would be an unreasonable and artificial restriction. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use clearer words, if they exist. But there is no other name for the island. And I don't see any evidence that this "ambiguity" is troubling anyone.

In any case, let's leave it as "island of ... island of ... island of..." for now and move on. --Tóraí (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

'All those people who don't understand where the Outer Hebrides are will be lost by the next sentence which mentions North Uist and those same Hebrides then won't they'. So what? The point is that the lead adequately states roughly the location of Rockall, which the majority of readers will comprehend. The location of the nearest permanently inhabited island is a unrelated, and far less important fact. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rockall's location and height are now determined with certainty.

Altered Rockall's previously stated location of 57°35’46.6”N 13°41’14.3”W to 57°35’46.695”N 13°41’14.308”W, and its height. Reasons: 1. Rockall Club website's Facts page, "57 35.7781N, 13 41.2371W". 2. BBC website, News article: "Rockall: Smaller, but in the same place", dated 8 October 2014: "The difference between the new data and the previous collections is only about 1.3m in an east/west direction and 0.3m in a north/south direction." 3. The Stornoway Gazette's article about this subject.

Nick Hancock sent the following to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office: "The UKHO coordinate in DMS is N 57 35 46.686, W 13 41 14.226" or 57°35.7781’N 13°41.2371’W. "Your new coordinate (to same precision) is N 57 35 46.695, W 13 41 14.308. Simply differencing the UKHO coordinates and the new coordinates gives a difference of only about 1.3m in east/west direction and 0.3m in north/south. Given the small amount of noise in the comparison of the two different datums (about a metre or so) and also the likely accuracy of the UKHO point then it is clear that both surveys arrived at pretty much the same answer and, unfortunately, you can't claim to have moved Rockall. So, in summary, I didn't 'move' Rockall, but the GNSS measurements I took from the summit did determine the height above mean sea level as 17.15m!"

The UKHO latitude-longitude (1977) is in WGS84, it was transformed from the original WGS72; in contrast Nick Hancocks latitude-longitude will be in ETRS89 ("two different datums"). On 1 January 1989 both were at the same location. In 2014 the difference in the UK is approximately 0.56 metres.

Just to point out that a Vincenty geodesic distance calculator is more accurate than the Google Earth measuring tool, though the difference at these distances is only a few metres.

Sulasgeir (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sea bed dispute

I do think we should include a reference to the sea bed dispute (the EEZ only applies to the water) and went to Rockall Basin for some text I could summarise, even just a see also. Unfortunately, we have not a word there about any sea-bed dispute. Would someone with info please update that article? --Red King (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

good idea. (eez isn't water, fishing is; eez is seabed ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemMacGána (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"(eez isn't water, fishing is; eez is seabed )" Of course it is - sorry, brain not in gear when I wrote that. --Red King (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If Rockall isn't British territory, then since it's within the UK's EEZ, it's a marine resource. Please see previous discussions, the seabed dispute has no contemporary relevance to this island. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've subsequently found Rockall Bank dispute, which does what we need, so I've added a line to the Rockall Basin article which reads

“ Rights to exploit these resources are disputed between the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faroes). This topic is addressed in Rockall Bank dispute. ”

Unfortunately that raises a concern about this text in the Rockall article

“ But as Rockall lies within 200 nmi (370 km) of both St. Kilda and North Uist, it remains within the EEZ of the United Kingdom and, as such, under international law the UK can claim "the sovereignty of the coastal state in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of natural and living resources fishery and mineral resources" of the rock itself and an area of territorial waters extending for 12 nmi (22 km) around it. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and Ireland have signed an EEZ boundary agreement that includes Rockall in the United Kingdom area. ”

because that assertion needs to be qualified with a reference to the competing Faroese claim based on continuity of continental shelf (lack of it, on the UK case: presence of it, in the Faroese case). --Red King (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Denmark has not disputed the UK's territorial claim to Rockall, nor it's 200 nmi EEZ, which Rockall is within. The continuity of continental shelf would not permit a country to claim within another country's 200 nmi EEZ. Please see this map which shows the agreed 200 nmi EEZ between the countries and the location of Rockall. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Denmark & Iceland both limit the UK eez in this area to 200 nmi. However the agreement between the UK and Ireland recognises UK eez beyond 200 nmi. Look at the map on page 8 of [5] Denmarks submission to the UN. That big green area of the Rockall plateau is claimed by Denmark. That area has been divided by Ireland and the UK between them. That area is also claimed by Iceland. ClemMacGána (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. What does this have to do with Rockall which is located outside of the disputed region? Rob (talk | contribs) 23:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As I will shortly be off-line for a while, I'm not going to change to the article, but to note here:

you added "Rights to exploit these resources are disputed between the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark" There is agreement between Ireland and the UK, an agreement which drops any territorial claims based on Rockall. ClemMacGána (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Which agreement are you referring to? Rob (talk | contribs) 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

1988 = see [6] Since then this agreement has been taken further and has been adopted by France and Spain. It allows claims of up to 500 miles. The four countries (France, Spain, Ireland and UK) have made a joint submission, see [7] The methodology in calculating eez limits is different to that used by Iceland and Denmark. ClemMacGána (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What agreement 'drops any territorial claims based on Rockall', and where is this implied? I have no idea what you want changing. Why is an agreement on claims in the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea relevant here? Rob (talk | contribs) 10:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bay of Biscay is relevant because of the methodology used. That agreement says that a country can claim eez by measuring distance from their coasts. That suits Ireland and the UK, who would like to enshrine this in international law. Iceland and Denmark want to use the limit of the continental shelf. They say that you cannot go 200 miles,let alone 500 miles. Historically there was no point in making such claims as no work could be done at such depths, so these claims were not made. Even when you look at early UK claims on Rockall, it was all about fishing rights, not eez. This might give the UK and Ireland an advantage in future discussions. Several countries have agreed this methodology (measuring from the coast) - do you want to declare their agreement null and void? (it is really 'one-up-man-ship') When the UN Law-of-the-Sea meet on this, it would suit the UK not to have a UK & Irl team versus Denmark & Iceland; but to have a UK & Irl & France & Spain & Portugal & anyone else team. Perhaps it is trivial, but some in Irish diplomatic circles considered it a clever move by the UK (and don't ask for a cite). That is the relevance of the Bay of Biscay agreement. ClemMacGána (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

UNCLOS and habitability

"The United Kingdom claimed Rockall in 1955 and had previously claimed an extended exclusive economic zone based on it. This claim to an extended zone was dropped upon ratifying UNCLOS in 1997, since rocks or islets such as Rockall, that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life[clarification needed], are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone under the Convention.[1]"

This is according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III 1994 Part VIII "Regime of Islands" Article 121 Section 3: "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Question I have is, what if they kept a permanent population there? Could they elevate the Rock to status of Island and claim a 200nmi EEZ? 98.127.119.21 (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In other disputes a permanent military base was not accepted. The population would have to be able to sustain iself. If Rockall had such a population, there would be another scenario. Ireland could then claim the island, as it is the closest mainland; "island hopping" does not count. But lets not go there, it is bare rock incapable of sustaining life, and the UK and Ireland have a common position which they need to maintain in their dispute with Denmark and Iceland. ClemMacGána (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an old legend that "Peter the Hermit", a Celtic monk lived on the rock, eating fish and sea birds. Even if it was true, I doubt that it would mean a "permanent self-sustaining population" ClemMacGána (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I recall that during previous negotiations, Denmark questioned the use of one of the Scottish islands, used to define UK rights, did not now have a "permanent self-sustaining population", They did not persist with their argument. ClemMacGána (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

I put up {{contradiction}}. Parts of the article say Rockall is made of granite rock (a plutonic rock), while other parts say it is a volcanic plug (which are made of volcanic rock). Correction or clarification is needed, as these seem to contradict one another. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources don't refer to it as a volcanic plug. Lots of sources for its composition, for example: [8] Rob984 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the claim of it being a volcanic plug due to lack of reliable sources. There are sources for it being a volcanic plug, however non are academic. Rob984 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rockall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130129092601/http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/events/the_rockall_solo_endurance_expedition.html to http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/events/the_rockall_solo_endurance_expedition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Geological longevity?

The ferocity with which Rockall is battered by the sea means it cannot lost for long, geologically speaking. I would guesstimate a million years or so before it is gone below the waves. Does anyone have a proper calculation? Fig (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It's composed of granite so it probably wont be weathered much by the force of the sea. Chemical weathering and possibly even frost weathering could cause erosion though. But with sea level fluctuation, it could be submerged below the rising sea within 1000 years; or long term, it and the surrounding bank could emerge as land due to falling sea levels and possibly even begin to enlarge due to deposition. There isn't going to be a simple calculation. Rob984 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox map

The map shown in the infobox could be better. The red dot showing the location of Rockall is almost off the edge of the map, and the distance to Iceland is barely discernible. Could we not centre the map on the dot? Or better yet replace the map with File:UK shipping forecast zones.png instead? nagualdesign 03:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

what was wrong with this one?

should we reinstate it?

Lugnad (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Even better. nagualdesign 04:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

..I've swapped out the map in the article, and I've uploaded a new version of that image to Commons. nagualdesign 05:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Good, but why have UK under Rockall? It implies that Rockall is UK territory Lugnad (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question. It's a political map. nagualdesign 23:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

...Okay, I edited the image. nagualdesign 02:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

Ròcal is the Gaelic form of the name, not the Norse form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.167.46 (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ownership

There are some serious misunderstandings and errors of fact in the article. I should have intervened earlier. My excuses are that these differences had little or no practical effect. I would rather not give support to drive-by (usually ip), editors. There is excellent cooperation between the UK and Irish negotiators in the ‘real world’, I didn’t want conflict or even the impression of conflict here. Henry Kissinger described the UNCLOS talks as “one of the most significant negotiations in diplomatic history”.

By ‘no practical effect’ I mean: Rockall is in the UK EEZ, therefore the UK thinks it ‘owns’ it. Does this actually matter? The UK considers Rockall an islet – a small island, territory, therefore they claim fishing rights. Even though this overlaps with Danish and Irish claims, it does not matters, because the EU common fisheries policy is exercised by the EU on behalf of Denmark, Ireland and the UK.

So, why correct the article now? It is disappointing to see new editors being threatened with being banned from editing. There is a concern, which could invert my earlier ‘no practical effect’ It is Brexit.

I know that the usual approach on Wikipedia is to make the change ‘be bold’; however I want to avoid the appearance of an edit war, a term just used in a recent undo. I could have posted this in Rockall Bank dispute. I reckon that more editors will see it here.

The source of many of the errors is the difference of opinion over the concept of ownership. The source of many of the misunderstandings revolves around how Rockall is described. The UK considers it to be and island or an ‘islet’ – which just means ‘small island’. Whereas it is just a rock; it is not territory, not land.

As has been said Rockall is in the UK EEZ. This is agreed by Ireland and the UK and now by Denmark, but NOT by any other country. It is opposed by Iceland. It is not yet incorporated into the law of the sea. The bilateral agreements between the UK and Ireland and between the UK and Denmark are subject to agreement by UNCLOS. I consider that they will almost certainly agree. But if they didn’t, then those two bilateral agreements would also fall. (Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed).

This is a matter of definition. What is Rockall? It is not land, it is not territory, it is not an island or even an islet. It is a rock or a skerry. If Rockall was land or an island, (capable of sustaining human life) then its ‘ownership’ would be determined by distance. In this case Donegal is 430 km distant while Scotland is 460 km away. ‘Island hopping’ is not used. However it is not an island, it is a rock, with the same rights as St Helen’s reef, or any other feature on the seabed, so the ‘equidistance’ formulae is used, equidistance between Donegal and Uist. This places Rockall 38 nautical miles north of the equidistance line, in UK EEZ. Remember, it is not land, not territory. It cannot be said to “owned” by anyone. The map showing (UK) under Rockall is misleading, as it implies that it is UK territory.

The opening line, describing Rockall as an ‘islet’ is inaccurate. It is a rock.

The March 2014 agreed coordinates between Ireland and the UK is about EEZ. There is nothing about Rockall itself. There is no agreement that the UK owns Rockall. No one can be said to ‘own’ it. The UK claims to own Rockall and have declared a twelve mile territorial sea around it. No other party has recognised this. It is not a territory, so it can’t have a territorial sea. To emphasise the invalidity of this claim, the Irish Navy regularly enters this alleged territorial sea. They do inform the Royal Navy, on a basis of: ‘we are not seeking permission; we are informing you as a courtesy’.

The final entry in the lead: ‘No other state has disputed our claim to the islet’ is correct. It is in the UK EEZ. The final entry in ‘ownership – Ireland’ is inaccurate: ‘With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which resolved any disputes over the ownership of the islet’. The publication said nothing about ownership. The UK are of the opinion that they ‘own’ Rockall; that it is UK territory, entitled to a territorial sea, which they could, in the event of Brexit, extend from 12 miles to 200 miles. This concept of ownership remains disputed.

So, is there any reason why the article should not be corrected?

Regards Lugnad (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken in a few areas, and it needs discussing first, so thank you for doing so.

You say it is not land, but the UK says it is land, and claims territorial sea around it. And countries aren't granted sovereignty over an island simply because they are closest. The UK claimed the rock as territory by sticking a flag on it and passing legislation that said so. Now, I am not saying there are not contrasting views on this. I think the Republic of Ireland regards it as simply a rock, like you say, and does not recognise the UK's territorial claim, including its claim to surrounding territorial sea. Previously the article simply stated in the lead that it is within the UK's EEZ, and then explained the differing views between the UK and Republic of Ireland. I believe this was removed because editors decided that the Republic of Ireland's view was irrelevant since it is within the UK's agreed EEZ. I agree this probably should be amended.

Anyway, as for EEZ, you say the agreement is "opposed by Iceland". How exactly? Does this mean Iceland does not recognise the UK's EEZ claim which includes Rockall? Its own EEZ claim certainly doesn't cover Rockall, or any of the UK's EEZ. There is a dispute over extended continental shelf, which has nothing to do with Rockall. The UK does not claim fishing rights (or EEZ or extended continental shelf) from Rockall. See Rockall Bank dispute.

Rob984 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a great deal of truth and clarity in what you write above, Lugnad.

Unfortunately, what matters more than truth here is what authoritative sources say - we just summarise in a balanced way what the authoritative sources say - even if we're certain privately that the collection of sources cited are selective, incomplete or biassed and give an untrue version of reality. Can you perhaps cite some helpful sources so that we can make this a less UK-centric article? BushelCandle (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I will endeavour to answer your questions. I understand the importance of supporting references and citations. I might make statements on this talk page which I can’t support. I will try to identify these. I would hope to be able to support any amendments to the article. If anyone wants to follow my arguments, they are, mainly, informed by ‘the law of the sea’ by Mahon Hayes, isbn 9781904890720. (Now retired, he was deputy leader of the Irish delegation for the first eight sessions of UNCLOS, and led the delegation for the remainder.)

You ask about Iceland. They are in some difficulty. (First, some background, and this is a vast over simplification. There are two methods of determining EEZ limits, ownership and everything else. (I said that this was a vast over simplification). One is distance; the second is determined by depth. If sea levels were to continuously drop, which land would first connect? In this latter scenario, Ireland and the UK would be limited at the Rockall Trough. The result is depicted in this Icelandic map: https://archive.is/jhjyH Denmark (the pink lines) gets Rockall; while Iceland (the red lines) gets a vast tract to the west.

Unfortunately for them, the bilateral agreement between Denmark and the UK sinks this proposal. The latest Icelandic proposal (and I do not have a citation for this) “revenue sharing”. They have concluded such a solution, elsewhere, with Norway. The logic of this is that deep deposits of oil or gas straddle our artificial boundaries. If you extract from a location in your EEZ, you could be drawing from another’s EEZ. The proposal is that the EEZ be shared on some percentage basis. There would be joint ownership. The proposal also gives a percentage to LLGDSs (land locked and geographically disadvantaged states).

Rob984 wrote that ‘The UK claimed the rock as territory by sticking a flag on it and passing legislation that said so’. This is all irrelevant ancient history, but for what it’s worth. Back in 1955 the UK was testing a rocket and wanted to secure Rockall for the test. So a British civil servant wrote to an Irish civil servant, requesting the use of the rock. This Irish civil servant said ‘ok’. Later Britain claimed that the OK letter ceded sovereignty to them. Ireland said that the civil servant would not have the authority to cede the rock, and the initial British request acknowledged Irish sovereignty. That was all irrelevant ancient history.

Rob also wrote ‘The UK does not claim fishing rights (or EEZ or extended continental shelf) from Rockall.’ That is good to hear, because Ireland, for one, does not recognise it: http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1979040500036?opendocument

‘The Government do not accept that any country can claim fishing rights from rocks.’

Perhaps it is Scotland, rather than the UK which makes the claim: http://news.stv.tv/highlands-islands/271862-scotland-reaffirms-ownership-of-rockall-and-its-valuable-fishing-waters/

(date 25 Sept 2011) and http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/marine-environment/ecosystems/Rockall

A map on page 8 (enumerated as page 84) of this pdf shows the extended UK fishery claim.

Regards - Lugnad (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, you have misinterpreted the EEZ claims, and extended continental shelf claims. The map you cited does not show Rockall (the islet/rock) within the disputed area. For a start, the disputed area is not EEZ. The black lines show the EEZ of each country. The coloured overlapping lines show extended continental shelf claims. Rockall is within the EEZ (black lines) of the UK (see map to the right).

And yes. In 1997, the United Kingdom ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In doing so it relinquished any claim of extended EEZ based on Rockall, since the agreement states "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf". As far as I know, the UK has never used Rockall to justify any claim since. It was regarded irrelevant to the determination of the EEZ boundary with the Republic of Ireland for example. That said, the UK does make a claim, based on inhabited islands west of mainland Scotland, to extended continental shelf and extended fishery limits. So does the Republic of Ireland, Iceland, and Denmark. Do you have a source that the UK's claim is based on Rockall?

The UK can claim territorial sea around "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own"—provided they are a point of land. This is not recognised by the Republic of Ireland which regards Rockall as a sea feature and not a point of land. However the dispute has no real-world implications, and the UK has never objected to Irish Naval vessels operating within the vicinity of Rockall.

This is all clarified in the article.

The information you have provided may be relevant to Rockall Bank dispute.

Rob984 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I am quite capable of making a mistake. The bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland places Rockall in the UK EEZ; as does the bilateral agreement between the UK and Denmark; as would the formula proposed by Iceland. The UK claims a territorial sea around Rockall. A territorial sea includes the rights to the waters, the seabed and the airspace. This has no practical effect. Any EEZ is within the area, agreed by Ireland and Denmark to be in the UK EEZ area. The fishing rights are administrated by the EU CFP. Leaving the question: can a rock have a territorial sea? Regards. - Lugnad (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That question does not have a simply answer. Of course a rock can have territorial sea. We can infer from UNCLOS, that "rocks" which can sustain human habitation or economic life of their own are entitled to exclusive economic zone or continental shelf. A skerry by definition is rock that is also an island—and many are smaller than Rockall. Many skerries are entitled to territorial sea, some even EEZ and extended continental shelf (the few that are large enough to be habitable). China—despite having signed UNCLOS—is claiming territorial sea and fishing rights from intermittently submerged reefs. Anyway, if Rockall is not a point of land (and not entitled to territorial sea), it is a marine resource; and since it is within the UK's EEZ, the UK has rights to marine resources which would include the rock. This means that the only implication of Ireland's lack of recognition is that it believes any state's vessels have free right of passage within the vicinity of Rockall. I suspect the UK has simply given permission to Irish Naval vessels to operate in the vicinity, and I am not aware of any other country does not recognise the territorial sea claim (there haven't been reports of Russian Naval vessels testing the waters, for example). As far as I know, the UK does not enforce airspace controls over Rockall either (which it is not obliged to do).

Regardless, it is not up to us to answer that question. We should probably mention the Republic of Ireland's lack of recognition of the UK's territorial claim in the lead, since it could have implications if for example, the UK left the EU.

Rob984 (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I see BushelCandle has removed the unsourced claim that the EEZ agreement settled territorial issues. But we could still do with explaining the territorial claim by the UK and the Republic of Ireland's view on this. Rob984 (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that our business here is near completion. Others may ponder how Rockall can be a ‘point of land’. regards - Lugnad (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Houses of Oireachtas. Written Answers. - Ownership of Rockall. 23 May 1995. See References Notes 64: Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Spring: "Under the Law of the Sea Convention which resulted from the Conference, sovereignty over an uninhabitable rock such as Rockall does not give rise to a right either to a continental shelf or to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone although it does create a right to a 12 mile territorial sea around it. In the case of Rockall, as I have said, Ireland did not recognise the British claim to sovereignty, deriving from the temporary landing of an individual on the rock in 1955, which would be the basis for a claim to a 12 mile territorial sea."

The closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall is at about 56.70194 -13.67252 (56° 42’ 06.984” N 13° 40’ 21.072” W or 56° 42.1164 N 13° 40.3512 W), a distance of about 99.602681606854 km, or 61.890 miles, or 53.781 nautical miles; calculated in WGS84 ellipsoidal or geodesic distance using Charles Karney's Geodsolve, and his Geodesic path "Find intermediate points along a geodesic" to determine the latitude-longitude. See References Notes 5: electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB). S.I. No. 86/2014 - Maritime Jurisdiction (Boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zone) Order 2014. "3. The boundary of the exclusive economic zone of the State in the North-East Atlantic Ocean is formed by a series of geodesic lines connecting the following points defined by co-ordinates of latitude and longitude on the World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS 1984), in the sequence given below:" "Reference Latitude Longitude"

    "109           56° 32.50 N           12° 12.00 W
     110           56° 42.00 N           12° 12.00 W
     111           56° 42.00 N           14° 00.00 W
     112           56° 40.00000 N        14° 00.00000 W
     113           56° 40.00000 N        14° 10.00000 W
     114           56° 34.63126 N        14° 10.00000 W
     115           56° 34.63126 N        14° 19.86168 W"

See References Notes 4: UK: The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013

     "190          56° 42’.00N          014° 00’.00W   Parallel of latitude
      191          56° 42’.00N          012° 12’.00W   Meridian of longitude"
      Sulasgeir (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If the Republic of Ireland's EEZ boundaries between 56° 42.00 N 12° 12.00 W and 56° 42.00 N 14° 00.00 W, were connected by a loxodrome (rhumb line) line, then the closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall, would be at about 56° 42’ 00.000” N 13° 41’ 14.308” W or 56° 42.00000 N 13° 41.23847 W, a WGS84 ellipsoidal (geodesic) distance of about of 99.815 km or 62.022 miles or 53.896 nautical miles. Sulasgeir (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Rockall. 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/20070313003106/http://www.appins.org/martin.htm to http://www.appins.org/martin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926234627/http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Publication/briefings/Rockall.pdf to http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Publication/briefings/Rockall.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416054436/http://www.kilda.org.uk/visitor-advice.htm to http://www.kilda.org.uk/visitor-advice.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805110514/http://www.cil.ie/sh618x4138.html to http://www.cil.ie/sh618x4138.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070812040132/http://www.gsiseabed.ie/progress.htm to http://www.gsiseabed.ie/progress.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710165609/http://www.cil.ie/downloads/1105986489/Beam_2005.pdf to http://www.cil.ie/downloads/1105986489/Beam_2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718003931/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0358/D.0358.198505220015.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0358/D.0358.198505220015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607140852/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0384/D.0384.198811290213.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0384/D.0384.198811290213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006092858/http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/and_rock.html to http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/and_rock.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313003106/http://www.appins.org/martin.htm to http://www.appins.org/martin.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822145436/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0268/D.0268.197311010090.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0268/D.0268.197311010090.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Minor Issue - The links for punk band "Gang of Four" and their album "Entertainment" direct the user to the "Gang of Four" (CHINESE POLITICAL PARTY) and "Entertainment" (GENERAL CONCEPT) instead of their actual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.6.216 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Corrected links Dabbler (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rockall. 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/20101124214726/http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/ocean/org_geochem/aces_ecomound.html to http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/ocean/org_geochem/aces_ecomound.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122002531/http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/Rockall.pdf to http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/papers/Rockall.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612214926/http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news131.htm to http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news131.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rockall2011.comrockall2011.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127230814/http://www.roundrockallrace.com/about-the-race/ to http://www.roundrockallrace.com/about-the-race/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616102950/http://www.rockallisland.co.uk/ to http://www.rockallisland.co.uk/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Map

I have replaced the CIA factbook map with one of our own. The main problem is it is heavily distorted. The lines of longitude, all at an angle across the map, are the clearest indication. It looks like it is excerpted from a larger map, perhaps of Europe so it appears at the left edge of that map. It is hard to reconcile with the fact that the island is in the UK’s EEZ so is closer to the UK mainland than the ROI, due to this distortion. As we have good maps that don’t have this problem I have replaced it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)