Talk:Rockall

I'd love to include this picture [1] (http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/rockall/guards.jpg) and the story behind it in this article but I'm just not 100% sure that it's genuine. Mintguy (T) 12:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Non-British claims 2 Image with UK in brackets 3 the Law of the Sea 4 Remotest Island 5 Reverting dispute 6 Another compromise proposal 7 British claim 8 Yet another compromise proposal - EEZ 9 Continental Shelf 10 The island is ... part of Scotland for administrative purposes. 11 Eymology

Non-British claims

What are the bases of the non-British claims? They should be explained here. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, a map of the location would be nice... Kokiri 08:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Found a PD map, so fulfilled my own request ;-) Still, something on the non-British claims...

Image with UK in brackets

... copied from User_talk:Metron

Why did you remove UK from the map of Rockall? Although it is claimed by some other nations. The United Kingdom is in active possesion. Mintguy (T) 12:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC).

The possesion of Rockall is quite disputed. Your postion is not widely accepted. Therefore I removed UK from the map. Metron 15:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know that the isle is in dispute. I wrote a lot of that article. The realpolitik though is that the islands are in the possesion of the United Kingdom, by act of Paliament no-less. AFAIK No other state has officially incorporated the isle into thier nation. That other states claim the islands is irrelevent. If France decided to claim the Isle of Wight, but did nothing to take possesion, would you suggest that we removed any mention of UK from the map the Isle. Would you suggest that we should do the same for the Falklands Islands? Mintguy (T) 22:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did not the Irish band the Wolfetones do a stunt some time in the early 90s to try to further Ireland's claims to Rockall? I think it is reasonable to say that only the UK has actively pursued its claim to sovereignty. Dbiv 00:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

quote: {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.} see [2] (http://www.gov.ie/debates-00/18oct/sect7.htm) --ClemMcGann 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Jooler wrote to me

The text "the designation (U.K.) is in dispute." is not stating that the ownership of the island is dispute but that the use of UK on the "caption" is in dispute. The island is actually part of the UK by Act of Parliament and no other country has officially incorporated the island into their nation. Just like the Isle of Wight or Gibraltar the place is de facto and de jure administered from the United Kingdom. Yes several nations claim the isle as thier own, but only one nation has it in law. Just like Jersey and Guernsey on the same map, Rockall is part of the UK at the moment. Whether France or Ireland or the man on the moon choose to not recognise that the Isle of Wight is part is of the UK is irrelevant to its status and the same is true of Rockall. No other nation is in active possession or has taken any steps to lay claim either through legal means or by threat of occupation. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands but UK appears on the map. The designation of UK on the isle for the map is correct. Jooler 12:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied

Yes, the use of UK on the caption is in dispute. The UK Parliament could make an Act claiming that Alpha Centauri is part of the UK, but that wouldn't make it so. No other nation has incorporated it because rocks have no status. The place is not de facto part of the UK because it is uninhabitable (unlike island off the coast of Scotland that have been abandoned, and no Act of the UK Parliament (to feed the British tabloids) is capable of overturning international law. --Red King 17:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it time to declare a disputed page?

Debate continues at Reverting dispute below

the Law of the Sea

The United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea, which was adopted at Montego Bay, on 10 December 1982. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part8.htm states "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." The United Kingdom acceded to the convention on 25 July 1997. Therefore all this suggestion that the rock carries an 200 mile economic zone are meaningless.

Rockall is 265 miles from Donegal, 298 miles from the Scottish mainland, 450 miles from Iceland and 400 miles from the Faroe Islands

There is a ledged that a Celtic monk lived on the island, living on fish and birds. It seems that he was Irish, but reported to an Icelandic Abbott. A more reliable reference is in ‘Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis’ circa 910AD, which describes the difficulties Brendan the Navigator had in landing on the rock, with its sheer cliffs and no refuge.

Back, in 1955, when the Blue Streak rocket was being tested, the UK authorities asked for, and were granted, Irish permission to test fire the rocket. This suggests that the British, prior to 1955, recognised Irish sovernity over Rockall.

Firstly the Blue Streak Rocket wasn't first tested until 1958. Secondly all of the tests were conducted in Australia at the Woomera rocket testing facility. You presumably mean the testing of the Corporal missile which was the reason for the annexation in the first place. Any evidence for this claim? Jooler 12:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How possible claims could be made:

• Ireland: it is nearest to Ireland.
• United Kingdom: ‘island hopping’ is within 200 miles of Saint Kilda. Saint Kilda is now uninhabited. Saint Kilda is 100 miles west of Harris. Harris is one of the Outer Hebrides. ... ...
• Denmark: it is part of an underwater mountain chain which includes the Faeroes. if sea levels dropped sufficiently, it would join the Faeroes.
• Iceland: The Rockall Trough, which is more than 3,000 metres deep, lies between the British Isles and the Rockall plateau, invalidating any Irish or British claim.

Remotest Island

The register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/08/rockall_ho_charity_appeal/) claims that Rockall is the remotest island in the world. I've no idea if this is true.

if it is true - then it should be said --ClemMcGann 15:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't find this totally unbelievable but we should find at least one more source for this before we present this like a fact in the article. --Bjarki 17:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

they have some great pics on their (Rockall Times) site, if anyone feels like sending them a begging e-mail to contribute it under GNU GL to Wiki Commons. --Red King 21:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remotest? For this claim to be true they would have to be using a strange definition of remote. Pitcairn and Tristan da Cunha are both a lot farther from a populated country. And there are plenty of unoccupied islands in the far south that are even more remote. For instance Bouvet_Island#Geography. -- Geo Swan 07:23, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Reverting dispute

Like countries argue about tiny irrelevant rocks in the middle of nowhere, Wikipedians argue about single sentence picture captions. The big deal here is whether the caption of the map should say "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" or "Ownership is disputed". I don't see why it matters but Jooler contends that a dispute about these brackets is something separate from dispute about ownership. Users ClemMcGann, Red King and myself have all reverted Jooler's edits on this. This issue does not need to get out of hand and we should be able to resolve it without flagging the page as disputed or protecting it. I invite all the involved editors to please try and reach an agreement on this rather minor point and ask of them all to refrain from editing the caption until some sort of a agreement is reached. I would also like other Wikipedians to have their say on the issue.

My personal proposal in the matter is to drop the disputed line altogether, bring back the map without the brackets (see here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/b/ba/20041005221033%21Map_location_rockall.jpg)) and just let the article itself explain the status of the rock. --Bjarki 18:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the unbracketed map is a good solution. Let the article explain the dispute. Jonathunder 19:20, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept that arbitration. However, to avoid disputable inferences being drawn, it would be politic to remove the designation "(Den)" from the Faroes for consistency. (Indeed I suspect that there may be some dispute about that too, given the constitutional status of the Faroes.) --Red King 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

unbracketed map is a good idea. The dispute is not about ownership per se, but whether anyone can own a rock in international waters --ClemMcGann 20:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. I have no issue about the disputed status of the Isle. I couldn't give a hoot. This argument is nothing to do with the disputed status of the isle. It is merely about a form of words. Not long ago an anon editor added the words "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" - what does this mean? Does it mean ownership of the island is in dispute or does it mean that the (U.K) part of the caption on the map is disputed. I.e. Is someone disputing the status of the island or are they disputing the neutrality of the page? To me it was unclear, and so I removed it. User:ClemMcGann kept re-adding it, and then Beirko stepped in and re-added it again. So I decided to rephrase the line to "Ownership is disputed". Which was not dissimilar to a form of words suggested by User:Biekko. Now another user Red King has stepped in and reverted the page again to the strange form of words "The designation (U.K.) is disputed". The U.K. tag on Rockall on this map serves exactly the same purpose as the U.K. on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey on the same map. It indicates who has legal title to the isle. Yes other nations claim it. Spain claims Gibraltar and Argentina claims the Falkland islands. The are several islands disputed between Japan China and South Korea. In all of these circumstances and others the labels attached to the maps indicate the nation that is the de facto and de jure governing authority. Why should Rockall be any different? In this instance the authority that has control of Rockall is the United Kingdom. That is a point of fact. Other nations claim the isle but no other nations has taken it upon themselves to act on that claim in anyway whatsoever. Rockall is part of the UK by Act of Parliament. If Holland made a claim on the Isle of Sheppey should we remove the UK designation? The disputed status of the ilse is discussed fully in the article. Whatever the right and wrongs of it the UK holds title to the isle. It is correct to have UK on the map until such time as some other country takes over. Jooler 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed in the biased behaviour of Jooler. Jooler thinks that <authority that has control of Rockall is the United Kingdom> The only authority there is – beleve it or not – Waveland. They were the last there and they will occupy the rock again from June 11 to June 24 2005.

Meanwhile the (Irish) Marine Institute continue to survey the seabed off Donegal, which includes the Rockall plateau, east of Rockall.

Back in 1972 the UK declared that no ship would be allowed within a 50-mile radius of the rock. If the UK had any < facto and de jure governing authority> this would be enforced. The reality is thet they don’t and no one respectes their claim.

There is no comparision between Rockall and the islands Jooler mentions. They have populations who can determine their own destiny. Rocks are uninhabitable. Rockall is outside the 200 mile limit. It is outside the remit of the UK. The phrase ‘ownership is disputed’ implies that it can be owned. Since the UK does not own the rock, either it should be removed from the map, or at a minimum, the words "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" should be left intact. The map itself is useful – from an Icelandic point of view – because it illustrates the Rockall Trough, which is more than 3,000 metres deep, lies between the British Isles and the Rockall plateau, invalidating (in Icelandic opinion) any Irish or British claim. Its curious the Jooler starts with <about the disputed status of the Isle. I couldn't give a hoot> anf finishes with biased opinion attempting to support the UK claim. I am disappointed with the behaviour of Jooler. Lets put back the unbracketed map - --ClemMcGann

Eh? What biassed opinion? I express no opinion about the various claims on the island, merely that the island has been declared part of the UK and no-one else has made any effort to overturn that by legal means or force. If we show a map of Nazi Germany after the annexation of Austria we do not state that the claim on Austrai is disputed. Similarly we do not indicate anything about the status of Hawaii which was annexed by the United States. So why Rockall? Jooler 22:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please try to understand. We are not discussing habitable land. It is a rock. It is 300 miles from Scotland. It is in international waters. There is no equivalence between it and Austria or Hawaii. Part of the original UK claim – and the UK Rockall Act – was legally reversed when the UK signed the Law of the Sea convention. Everyone ignores the UK claim. Green peace or Wave Land have occupied it in the past and will next June. The UK do not own it, they can’t own it. If it was habitable then perhaps they could own it. However it is nearer to Donegal than to Scotland. Please try to understand, ownership of a remote rock is more akin to ownership of an iceberg.--ClemMcGann 22:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made three attempts at compromise, yet you insist on using the clumsy phrasing "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" - I hope you can accept the latest version, because this is just getting too darned stupid to be true. Jooler 23:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And Gibraltar is nearer to Spain than Britain. WTF has that got to do with anything!? The Law of the Sea refers to the EEZ not to the territory of the rock. It has no bearing on this territory only to the seas around it. Greenpeace is not a state. Jooler 23:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are reverting without due consideration. What is wrong with the words "The legality of the United Kingdom's claim to the island is disputed." ? Jooler 23:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

because its not just the leagility of a claim, its the possibility of such a claim --ClemMcGann 23:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm over the three revert limit. I have been trying to compromise and have used three different versions so whether that counts as revertign or not I don't know. - However ClemMcGann is being uncompromising and unreasonable and is definiately over the 3 revert limit. He is continually reverting to the same clumsy wording. Goodnight. Jooler 23:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Allowing that map with (UK) on it, even with the caption "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" may have been a mistake, we should have used this map [3] (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/b/ba/20041005221033%21Map_location_rockall.jpg) --ClemMcGann 23:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted to Jooler's wording, which seems more accurate; it's not the designation that's disputed, but the claim, surely. On the other hand, ClemMcGann's alternative map would be better, I think. Re there any objections to using it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes I object to using the map without the UK caption, because it is wrong!. Rightly or wrongly the UK has title over Rockall. Look at List of disputed or occupied territories Rockall is correctley listed under the UK with the other nations claiming it in brackets. Jooler 08:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

correction - neither the UK nor anyone else has title. Wiki is not the place for propaganda - lets revert to the unbracketed map

--ClemMcGann has reverted to the stupid form of words for about the eighth time (this time after Mel Etitis's edit). I think you can now see who the belligerent one is. Jooler 09:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The words were not mine. The words are not stupid. Jooler changed the words to ones that are biased in that they imply the the UK could own a rock 300 miles from Scotland in international waters. --ClemMcGann 13:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting very "meta-wiki"! The status of Rockall is disputed, and the statement that it is disputed is itself disputed! --Red King 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the Nth time I have no dispute with stating that the UKs claim on the isle is disputed. Originally I removed the unweildy text "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" because of the clumsy use of words. After repeated reversions I rephrased it with what to my mind is a perfectly acceptable phrase, but ClemMcGann is being belligerent and insists on using the clumsy phrasing. Jooler 09:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The objection is not just putting (UK) on the map. The same objection would be if you put (DEN) or (IRL) or whatever on the map. A rock in international waters cannot be part of any national territory. There was nothing wrong with the text. You have no justification in replaceing it with misleading text. --ClemMcGann 13:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another compromise proposal

Bjarki proposed a compromise that the map be purely a geographic map, with no political designations. That appeared to remove the cause of the dispute. But Jooler argues (I think) that showing it without a designation when other designations (such as Faroes "(Den)") are shown is not neutral, that it lends weight to the argument that it cannot be designated. So may I offer another compromise proposal: a purely topological map of the North Atlantic, with none of the land-masses designated. A satelite pic would be ideal, except that the expletive deleted thing is too small to show up from orbit! How about we emulate the map of Vanuatu as I've shown here? Though the sea bed has to be included! --Red King 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CIA map which shows the continental shelf is too valuable to throw away. And the use of UK on the caption is legitimate inasmuch as the fact that the UK annexed the island in the 50s and made it part of the United Kingdom in the 70s and it currently maintains the navigational beacon located on the isle. Jooler 09:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of agreeing with Jooler, the 'cia' map does show the 10,000 feet deep trough, which is the basis of the Icelandic case, which will be addressed in 2006.

The maintaince of navigational beacons are not relevant. For example the navigational beacons in Northern Ireland are maintained by the Irish-flagged MV Granuaille, operating out of Dun Laoghaire. (There is a complex system to finance this)--ClemMcGann 13:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have been away from the computer since I made my last proposal for a compromise and I find the volume of discussion amazingbut it does not seem to have helped in solving this mega-issue. I find Red King's proposal the most viable one. I am already working on erasing all political designations from the CIA map and it should be ready sometime today. I hope that all parties can agree on that. --Bjarki 12:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. The isle was annexed by the UK in 1955 and made a part of Scotland in 1972. Jooler 12:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how that is an objection to a strictly geographic map. --Bjarki 12:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bjarki, thanks--ClemMcGann 13:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the map without any political features. --Bjarki 13:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That seems to me to be the only reasonable NPOV version. --Red King 13:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to see what anyone could have against that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bjarki, I thank you. Now lets look forward to the Waveland occupation in June. :) --ClemMcGann 14:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What use is a map with no labels? For those who are geographically challenged it could be anywhere in the world. Jooler 14:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The scary thing is that I think you are being serious with the comment above...--Bjarki 14:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er... it's on a page about Rockall. Who do you think is going to be reading this article — George W. Bush? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that removing the labels from the map loses information. It serves only one purpose, to pander the viewpoint that the island can have no territorial claim by the United Kingdom. This is a POV. Removing the labels is actually an anti-NPOV move. Lets look at the facts. The UK annexed the island in 1955, and formally incorporated it into the UK in 1972. It is part of the UK. As such it is listed on the following Wikipedia pages - Inverness-shire, Geography of the United Kingdom extreme points of the United Kingdom, List of the British Isles, List of islands of Scotland etc. Ireland no longer make any claim on the Island. In any case the nearest point of land to Rockall is not in Ireland but is in fact Saint Kilda in the Western Isles of Scotland. It is within 200 miles of St Kilda and formerly the limit of 200 miles for territorial waters meant that Rockall was within the territorial waters of the UK. In 1997 the UK Government ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This treaty has no bearing whatsoever on the status of the island of Rockall. It concerns itself with the sea-bed and fisheries. British territorial rights in this area are now derived from the St Kilda archipelago at 57 50N 8 40W, as Rockall is within 200 of St Kilda it includes Rockall itself. As a result Scots law still applies to the Rock under the Isle of Rockall Act 1972. No other nation lays claim to the rock anymore, they just ignore it. Jooler 15:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Rockall was part of the UK, then the UK 200 mile limit would be drawn from Rockall - it is not. Therefore Rockall is not part of the UK. The Rockall Act claimed not only the rock but also the fish in the sea and the mineral rights to the seabed. The UK is *not* exercising these rights. --ClemMcGann 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. The UK ratified the Law of the Sea treaty reliquishing the right of an EEZ surrounding the isle, because the treaty specifically states that uninhabitable lands cannot be used to delineate the EEZ. This is not the same as reliquishing the claim on the land of Rockall itself, and indeed the UK still claims 12 miled territorial waters around the island. But even so, the island of Rockall lies within the 200 miles EEZ of the UK as measured from St Kilda and given this, it gives the UK exclusive rights to use the resources within this zone (including the land of Rockall) as they see fit. Jooler 20:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What information has been lost from the article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The graphical illustration of the fact that the UK has a de jure and de facto claim on the island and that no other nations has a similar entitlement. If you do not live in the UK and you have an atlas not published in the UK, please look in it and see what label is attached to Rockall? Jooler 15:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In other words, no information has been lost — only the graphical presentation of information that's there in the text. I find it very difficult to get worked up over that, and it certainly doesn't breach NPoV policy. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I say it does. There was nothing wrong with the map that was there previously. It has been there for quite some time. The map has now been changed to satisfy the opinion of someone who does not accept the British claim despite the fact that under internatinal law the isle falls within the 200 miles limit of the UK. Under the Law of the Sea - "The EEZ extends the sovereignty of the coastal state in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of natural and living resources fishery and mineral resources to 200 miles" - Rockall is less than 200 miles from St Kilda. Rockall lies within the UK's EEZ. Ireland and the UK have signed a boundary agreement regarding their respective EEZs and as part of the agreement Ireland has accepted that Rockall lies within the UKs EEZ. Jooler 16:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By signing the Law of the Sea, the UK was contradicting some of the provisions of the Rockall Act. It would seem that this so-called law was merely a negotiating ploy. It was ignored. It failed. --ClemMcGann 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ireland has accepted that the UK can claim a 200 mile eez from St Kilda, provided that there is no eez from rockall. Ireland and the UK agreed to this. (even though it renders provisions of the Rockall Act void). But Denmark and Iceland have not. They want the Irish and UK eez to stop at the Rockall Trough. There is a conference next year in Galway to discuss this issue. --ClemMcGann 16:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that, whatever Jooler asserts, the use of the new map doesn't affect the article, doesn't make the article PoV, and so is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia policy. He's worked up because of the reason for the change, but what matters is what's in the article — what the reader sees. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to read my mind, you might get a headache. I claim that removing labels on a perfectly legitimate map to satisfy the belligerence of a user who diputes the UK's claim to the isle -- despite the physical annexation of the isle; despite the proximity of the Isle to territory of the United Kingdom; depsite international law declaring that the isle is within the UK's EEZ; despite legislation passed within the UK to re-affirm that claim; despite the physical occupation of the isle and despite a boundary agreement signed between the UK and Ireland -- is pandering to a POV. As it stands at the moment, and as I have pointed out innumerable times, Rockall IS part of the UK, de jure and de facto. So why remove the labels? Would you remove the labels from any other part of the UK because someone somewhere disputes it? Jooler 16:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<depsite international law declaring that the isle is within the UK's EEZ> I don’t like saying this, but it is not international law, it was an agreement between Ireland and the UK. It is not accepted by Denmark or by Iceland. --ClemMcGann 17:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Denmark and Iceland are neither here nor their with regard to Rockall and the EEZ as their EEZ wouldn't extend that far. The UN treaty regards Rockall was within the UK's EEZ. The boundary between the UK and Ireland's EEZ was a separate agreement. Jooler 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm been made out the villain here. But what about ClemMcGann who reverted this page something like 12 times back to saying "the designation (U.K.) is in dispute." Jooler 16:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was ok - you should not have changed it --ClemMcGann 17:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed it because it didn't make any sense. What did it mean? I changed it and several other people changed it and you kept changing it back. Jooler 17:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that Jooler is now abbreviating the “Irish claims to Rockall“ paragraph in the article. It used to point out that Rockall is 424 km from Donegal while it is 480km from Scotland. Those facts should have been left together. They are only relevant when placed side by side. He has moved the “480km from Scotland” phrase to the UK claim paragraph. Why have it there? It hardly supports the claim. Is the object to obscure the fact that Rockall is nearer to Donegal? Any equivalent UK claim would then have to be based on “island hopping”, the (international) legality of which is doubtful. --ClemMcGann 17:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's actually nearest to Saint Kilda. To be precise the EEZ extends 200 miles from the territorial waters of a state, where the territorial waters are 12 miles from habitable territory of the state.In this the EEZ extends from St Kilda and encompasses Rockall. Jooler 17:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it is nearer to the (now) uninhabited Saint Kilda. That is what ‘island hopping’ means. So why did you change the “Irish claims to Rockall“ paragraph in the article? --ClemMcGann 17:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to where it made sense. Now the distance from Scottish land and Irish land is given in the respective paragrapghs about the two claims. Previously the paragrapgh about the British claim made no mention at all of how close or far way it was from Scotland. Did you think this fair? Also the mention of Saint Kilda was parenthesised. You could paraphrase what it said before as "Look see.. it's closer to Ireland than Scotland, so there nuhhhh... (although in fact this Scottish island is closer still but let's ignore that)". Jooler 17:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But all this debate is expressed in the article. The PoV of each of the protagonists is stated clearly in the text. Bjarki's compromise map is completely NPOV. It simply gives the topgraphy, leaving the article to provide the context.

So we have to ask : What is the purpose of this article? Why does it exist? Surely the answer is that it exists because there is a dispute and the article seeks to describe that dispute. Thus, if the map is labeled with any political designations, then the presence or absence of a designation on Rockall is a statement of support for one side or the other. The reason for all this argument is that the image has a prominent position and so any annotations have added weight. --Red King 17:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(So arguably there was a logic to the orginal version with "(UK)" on the map and the countering statement "The designation "(UK)" is disputed." because in one picture and one line, the debate is summarised.) --Red King 17:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

correct

it encapsulated the situation. The UK claims the rock. Others dispute that it can be claimed.

to be fully npov, equal attention should be given to the Icelandic and Danish case

and perhaps even the Waveland case. They are in de facto control (or will be in June) --ClemMcGann 18:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article exists because it is a place just like the hundreds of other places that have articles on Wikipedia. Is it a statement of support to indicate that the Isle of Wight is a UK possession? Is it a statment of support to indicate that the Aran Islands are an Irish possession? No. It is a statement of fact! The same is true of Rockall. It doesn't matter if you or I or the man in the moon claim the Isle of Rockall for ourselves. It is in the possession of the United Kingdom. It is a dis-service to factuality to state otherwise. Jooler 19:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not NPOV to deliberately remove legitimate labels that declare sovereignty, at the whim of an individual who disputes matters that have been settled under international law. The UK is the de jure and de facto governing authority of the island of Rockall. To remove the labels is to make it appear that other claims have some basis in law and that is simply false. Maybe at some time in the future the laws will change and the UK's right to hold the island can be legitimately disputed, but at the moment the UK is perfectly within its right to claim the island, therefore it is entirely appropritate for the map to indicate the current owner, which in this case is the UK. To not show this is to clearly demonstrate that that those who dispute the fact have some kind of legitimate claim and this is simply FALSE. Indeed as Rockall lies within the UK's legitimate EEZ, no other nation can actually legally lay a claim to the Isle. Jooler 21:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The land of Rockall"? Is that like the land of green ginger? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?!? Is that supposed to be in any way a useful comment? Jooler 21:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear that the Greens are promising sense-of-humour transplants on the National Health. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok I see - so you have nothing useful to add so you try to make a joke. Well, good on you, well done. That really ends things nicely. Right, so that presumably means that you accept the position I stated in the previous paragraph. Jooler 22:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually quite amused by following this "discussion", interesting to see how people can spew out endless texts without ever adding anything new, just the same points over and over again. I don't know how you guys have the energy for this. --Bjarki 22:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

British claim

In the ‘British claims to the island’ paragraph, Jooler has added: “the island itself remains within the EEZ of the United Kingdom and as such, under international law the U.K. can claim”. This is not accurate. It is not “international law”. It is only a treaty signed between Ireland and Britain. See: [4] (http://www.gov.ie/debates-03/5Mar/Sect10.htm) {While Ireland and the United Kingdom reached agreement between themselves in 1988 on the delimitation of most of their respective continental shelves, this agreement is not accepted by Iceland or Denmark}

It might be better if an editor, other than I rectified this --ClemMcGann 19:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since that bit of the sea is within 200 miles of unambiguous UK territory (St Kilda) and not also within 200 miles of any of Iceland, Ireland, or the Faroes, then that bit of the text is correct. Under international law, it is within the UK's EEZ. The essence of the debate is whether there is a further 200 miles radius EEZ around Rockall. The agreement confirms that the UK has accepted that it does not. --Red King 19:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok

just as well that I didn't touch it --ClemMcGann 19:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another compromise proposal - EEZ

Given that a substantial part of this article concerns the respective EEZs of the UK, Ireland Demark etc., would it not be prudent to indicate on the map exactly how these EEZs are delineated. I suggest that we obtain a map of the EEZs and superimpose the delineation over the current map. Jooler 09:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've written an email to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office with a view to them sending such a map. Jooler 09:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update. I've managed to find a site showing EEZs online. The UK zone is show on http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/summaryInfo.aspx?EEZ=826. The main size is at http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx. Jooler 10:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

http://www.maps.marine.ie/Website/OSS/viewer.htm

The continental shelf issue remains unresolved. Ireland and the United Kingdom have one opinion, while Denmark and Iceland have another: The one mile deep, 400 miles long, 80 miles wide, Rockall Trough is the limit of the Irish and British continental shelf.

can we change this paragraph to EEZ? --ClemMcGann 12:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is broader than that. See next. It maybe needs a new title? --Red King 07:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not convinced by the SeaAroundUs map: it doesn't look like an equitable division of the intersection of a 200 nm circle around Malin Head with one around St Kilda. Is it speculative?--Red King 07:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continental Shelf

I think that Jooler's idea for a map showing the agreed boundaries is an excellent one, but it would need to be "as well as", not "instead of", the existing (context) map becuase it needs to focus on the Rockall-Hatton area. I've been reading the UN Law of the sea here (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part6.htm) and I see that the original 200 nautical mile limit has been replaced by a zone that extends to edge of the continental shelf OR 200 nm, whichever is the greater. But of course the fun (as we know) starts when adjacent states have competing claims. On that subject, the Convention (Article 76) has this to say: 10. The provisions of this article are without prejudice to the question of delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts.! The first english language treaty is between Australia and New Zealand and is shown here (http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/Hydrography/CurrentProjects/continentalshelffolder/cont_shelf_ausnzback/index.jsp). Since a treaty on the Rockall bank will require a four way negotiation, don't hold your breath! I don't think that it is the place of Wiki (other than in discussion) to speculate about the outcome. --Red King 07:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had nearly completed a map yesterday, when my computer crashed and all my work was lost. Hopefully it will be complete later today. Jooler 07:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This (http://utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Frettamyndir/landgrunnsk_hatton_rockall.jpg) map which is linked from the article is very good, it shows the ocean floor, the EEZs of the surrounding states and their continental shelf claims as well. --Bjarki 09:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is really excellent. Do you think you could persuade them to release it under GPL? --Red King 12:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue of the Hatton-Rockall Plateau should be a separate article from Rockall? quote: The Rockall Plateau is subject to multiple and extensive overlapping claims to maritime space involving Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the United Kingdom as seen in Figure 2. When the claims are superimposed there are two large areas of trilateral overlap (Denmark/Iceland/UK and Denmark/Ireland/Iceland) and three areas of bilateral overlap (Denmark/Iceland, Ireland/Iceland and Iceland/UK) (Claims to Maritime Space). from http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/currentstudents/ug/projects/Irwin/irwin.htm --ClemMcGann 09:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In time, it may become so, but at present it really needs to be in the main article to keep it NPOV. (ps, I've promoted this segment as it really is a new sub-topic) --Red King 12:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

so now we have a map which denies the views of Iceland and Denmark --ClemMcGann 20:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What?? The EEZ of the Faroes and iceland are shown. Jooler 21:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that ClemMcGann is having difficulty with the colour washes you have chosen for countries other than the UK - it was my reaction at first too. Can you have look at toning them up and the UK down, to achieve NPOV. My boredom threshold couldn't stand another meta war. --Red King 22:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I chose pink for the UK (old British Empire colour), green for Ireland, orange for Faroes and blue for Iceland. The colours are at the same intensity, but the red shows up more because of the pale colour of the continental shelf. Red/pink also contrasts more with the blue seabed. Jooler 22:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The island is ... part of Scotland for administrative purposes.

"The island is considered by the UK to be part of Scotland for administrative purposes." (sic!) Is this a Monty Python sketch? Right you 'orrible puffins, hand over yer poll tax!!! I think it is time that the retired general came on to say that this sketch is getting too silly and ordered it to cease! --Red King 22:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was added by user:MacRusgail. I have removed it. Jooler 10:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and now we are treated to "Rockall", which is taken from [5] (http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/and_rock.html)where I read: [6] (http://www.nyanko.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fas/index.html) Please note: the Works of Flanders & Swann are copyright material and may not be reproduced or performed without the consent of THE FLANDERS & SWANN ESTATES. --ClemMcGann 10:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) I trust that Jooler did obtain this consent. However it is imo reducing this article to ridicule

That's not where I sourced the text, but in any case lyrics can be published under fair use. Why do you say it is reducing the article to ridicule? The song is about the British annexation of the rock and if you read it is actually pouring scorn on the concept of claiming it "for the Empire". Jooler 10:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A very revaling answer

A link on the page has the text, yet Jooler sourced it elsewhere --ClemMcGann 18:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? Jooler 19:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The island is a part of Inverness-shire, and should be in the standard format. This is actively administered as a UK territory: it is a UK territory. What about the articles on Quemoy and Matsu? Quemoy and Matsu are held by the ROC and claimed by the PRC; they are but miles from its coast. The only person to have resided there is a Brit: this is as much a British territory as Westminster.

It is not. An uninhabitable rock in international waters cannot form part of any territory. Waveland will resume their occupation in a couple of weeks time. The only actual resident was a Celtic monk. Who, apparently, reported to an Icelandic Abbot. Well that is the legend anyway. What should be of concern is the Icelandic claim which is not the well articulated in the article, that the Rockall trough ends the Irish and British continental shelf. --ClemMcGann 22:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is actively administered as a UK territory... How the heck does the UK "actively administer" a remote, uninhabited rock? When there is someone there--when the "Waveland" people sit on it, the UK government ignores them. How is that actively administering anything? Jonathunder 02:24, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Inverness-shire Council's legislation does apply to it.

In what way? Does it collect poll-tax off the gannets? empty the bins of guano? check for asylum-seeking ptarmigans escaping from Iceland? fill in the pot holes on the gulf stream? --Red King 11:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article, the Waveland hippies weren't the only people to have ever 'lived' on Rockall; some SAS guy did in 1985 (see here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/oceanrow/history/tommclean.shtml)). Rockall is de facto British territory, and no other country now disputes this; their disputes are surrounding the ownership / EEZ rights on the underlying continental shelves. If Rockall were to be recognized as an island, owned by the UK, then the UK would own all mineral rights etc around it (I think it's 200 miles?). As it is not recognised as an island (due to the Law of the Sea saying bare rocks don't have EEZs), then it's a moot point. It's owned by Britain, but doesn't affect ownership of the underlying seas. The exploration rights of the area around Rockall are shared between Britain and the ROI. Iceland also want the area, but Iceland would lay claim to the Mediterranean if it could. They're a right bunch of bastards who encroach sea areas and then over-fish British, Canadian and Irish fishing zones on a regular basis. Proto 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proto, Rockall isn’t a territory of any country. It is not ‘owned’ by Britain, or by anyone else. It is an uninhabitable rock. By signing the Law of the Sea, the British acknowledged that fact. If Rockall was habitable then it would be Irish, as it is nearer to the Donegal coast than to Scotland. ‘Island hopping’ is not recognised in international law. However ownership does not arise. The present dispute over the sea bed, with Ireland and Britain on one hand and Iceland and the Faeroes on the other hand; concerns where the continental shelf ends. The Rockall Trough is 3,000 meters deep. The claim, which is gathering support, is that this ends the continental shelf. If so, neither the Irish nor the British have any rights. The Irish response is to seek a postponement of the decision from 2006 to 2009 and to spend money surveying the Trough. If there is a shallow then such a claim can be challenged. --ClemMcGann 13:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Law of the Sea specifies that uninhabitable rocks do not qualify to act as an extension of a nation's EEZs. This is what was acknowledged when Britain ratified the Law of the Sea. Britain still claims Rockall as its territory, however the ownership is moot when

considering EEZ areas. As Rockall (due to it being a uninhabited rock) does not affect the delineation of EEZs, the continental shelf does not fall in any nation's EEZ, and therefore the sea bed dispute has arisen. I stand by my claim that Iceland are bastards, though. Proto 14:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how Britain can claim Rockall as territory while acknowledging that it has neither fishing rights nor mineral rights. In any event the claim is not recognised by any other nation. The seabed does lie in some nation’s EEZ. At present there are overlapping claims. There is an agreement between the Irish and the British. But they have yet to persuade others of its merits. Iceland and the Faeroes have competing claims. All they agree is that the Trough excludes Ireland and Britain. Iceland has now gone further and has claimed a huge chunk of the seabed to the west of Ireland, just look at the new area they now claim (or should I say Icelandic law?) on this map: [7] (http://www.reglugerd.is/interpro/dkm/WebGuard.nsf/5ed2a07393fec5fa002569b300397c5a/38f26e401b30f07700256a62004cf3f6) (scroll down to the bottom of the page)--ClemMcGann 15:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is correct that a very clear distinction needs to be made between the question of ownership and the one of EEZ delimination. It is undisputed that Rockall does not affect EEZ or continental shelf claims and the actual ownership of the rock does not matter the least and I actually don't understand why other countries would challenge Britains claim to ownership of this miserable place, why not let them keep it if it eases their post-colonial stress disorder. --Bjarki 16:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because no one can ‘own’ an uninhabitable rock in international waters. Back in 1954, Britain asked Ireland for permission to test fire the Blue Streak missile in the area. The Irish granted permission. However the civil servant who replied added that the uninhabitable rock could not form part of any territory. It seems that the British took this reply to mean that Ireland was abandoning its territorial rights. Even if that was the case, a civil servant would not have such authority. So they decided to seize it for themselves. The initial expectation (and the claim in the law they passed) was that this meant fishing and mineral rights). The Irish position was, and is, that if it can belong to any nation, then it belongs to Ireland. The regrettable consequence of the untenable British claim is that it weakens the EEZ claim in the eyes of other nations. There is a real possibility that the idea of EEZ up to the limit of the continental shelf will be favoured by most countries. If that is accepted then the mineral rights on the rock of Rockall will belong to the Faeroes. --ClemMcGann 16:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eymology

Just wanted to point out that Alexander MacBain’s An Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language (1896) is a somewhat...um...speculative work at times and isn’t the best reference for ordinary meanings of Gaelic words.

Stòr-dàta Briathrachais Gàidhlig entry for ròcail ()

corrugate ròcail

croak ròcail

croaking ròcail fem

hawing ròcail fem

mangle ròcail

roaring ròcail fem

tear ròcail

Ewen MacEachen (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/pa44/faclair/dict001.htm)’s Gaelic Dictionary (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/pa44/faclair/dict001.htm) (1842) gives (http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/avenue/pa44/faclair/rrr.htm) both of these

Ròcail, -te, -ladh, a.v. and n.v. tear, mangle.

Ròcail, -ladh, n.v. croak, roar hoarsely.

—Moilleadóir 10:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)