This is an archive of past discussions about Rockall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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...
Non-British Claims? Are you mad? The rock is closest to Ireland so therefore the question should be "What are the basis for the non-Irish claims?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.172 (talk • contribs)
And the Falkland Isles are closest to? Alaska is closest to Canada / Hong Kong was closest to China - proximity to a territory does not infer ownership. Munchingfoo
So what does confer ownership? The threat of force or a veto in the security council? Besides Hong Kong was indeed closest to China and is now Chinese. Rockall is closest to Ireland .... Q.E.D.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.6.238 (talk) 17:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
"Island hopping" doesn't depend on the size but on a population. St Kilda once had a population, but since 1930 has been deserted, (other than summer visitors). ClemMcGann (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that ownership of the island is disputed is reason enough to dispute the neutrality of an article that claims the island is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.88.191 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The article makes no such claim, although it does of course refer to the various claims made by national governments. BenMacDui19:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
He has a point. The second paragraph states: Rockall, formally annexed under the Island of Rockall Act 1972, is now within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the United Kingdom. While Ireland agrees, Denmark also claims it - and Iceland recognises the Danish claim. ClemMcGann (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we leave this as a disputed article until the official pronouncement in May of this year. After all, what is the point in us rehearsing a dispute that is being adjudged by greater minds than ours..... Afterwards we can fight again over some petty point....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.158.158 (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because the rock is in dispute is no reason for the article to be in dispute. We should be able to state the facts as they are - that is - that there are two competing opinions with Britain and Ireland on one side, measuring the distance from land - and Iceland and Denmark on the other, saying that the depth of the Rockall Trough defines the edge of the continental shelf, denying British or Irish claims beyond that point.
as for the "official pronouncement in May" - I doubt that there will be one. Just a personal opinion. The four will meet, exchange papers and disagree. Remember this row has been going on since 1985 when Denmark claimed the Rock.
A communiqué issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 7 May 1985 announced the designation of not only the seabed in the immediate vicinity of the Faroes but also a vast area of the Rockall plateau to the south west. The press release which accompanied the communiqué indicated that the legal basis of this designation was the assumption that "the Faroe Islands are part of the microcontinent" formed by the "Faroes-Rockall Plateau", an "elevated plain with its summit in the Faroe Islands". [1]ClemMcGann (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ireland is nearer to Rockall than GB
I made a very simple geographical edit to here[2], and some editors are intent on reversing my edit. Don't know why, but I believe that should be mentioned in the Ireland section, as the rock is nearer to Ireland, and that's an interesting fact. PurpleA (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Some articles, such as this one, attracts editors who prefer facts not as they are but as they think they might be - hold firm ClemMcGann (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that GB is nearer to Rockall than Ireland. We measure from extremities (and that means St Kilda) rather than Nelson's Columns. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The sentence said "mainland", while you are "island hopping". While St Kilda may have summer visitors, right now its uninhabited. In any event Ireland and Britian have a common understanding on the status of Rockall, which is not shared by Iceland or Denmark ClemMcGann (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The repeated POV vandalism to this article uses several terms, including "the nearest country" and "(UK)" (we have equal-opportunity trolls). North Uist is inhabited and closer than Ireland, and even St Kilda has (AFAIK) a year-round presence on the military test range there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact of Ireland's proximity is not in doubt, the relevance of the fact is clearly disputed. In my view it would make more sense to move some of the details of the opening paragraph of "The United Kingdom's claims" into a new section below Geography called "Nearest land" or similar and add other relevant information such as the distance to Iceland etc. there. The information could be both purely geographical and make relevant points about the politics of the various claims. The distance to Ireland is already mentioned in the Geography section, but perhaps the implications could be made more clear. As Ireland is not claiming the rock anyway, the proximity to the mainland isn't really relevant to that section. Nor indeed is all the guff about Ardnamurchan to the UK's claims. I'll draft something up soon-ish. BenMacDui19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC) PS
All facts are relevant, that's what the Wikipedia encyclopedia is about. The rock is nearer to Ireland than it is to the Great Britain mainland, and that is surely a notable piece of innocuous data. That alone could make Ireland's position notable, and the reader should know all the facts. The article "does" talk about the disputes, so the information is germane. PurpleA (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
With respect, not all facts are relevant and you might care to read WP:IINFO. Nonetheless the information has its place. Outline re-draft to follow. BenMacDui22:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Notes: Template:convert now used and the dab is to St Kilda, Scotland, not Soay, which comes below. Hogha Gearraidh also appears below. I'm not sure we need fractions of kms, but I've left them for now.
Nearest land
This issue is not simply about the geographical location of Rockall, but is also relevant to some of the competing political claims to it. Rockall is:
301.4 kilometres (187.3 mi) west of the Scottish island of Soay in the St Kilda archipelago. Soay has probably never been permanently inhabited.
303 kilometres (188 mi) west of Hirta, the largest island in the St Kilda group. Hirta was permanently inhabited until 1930 when the resident population was evacuated.[1] Since 1957 Hirta has been re-occupied year-round by a small number of civilians working in a military base.[2][3]
Notes: The distance to Hirta is an approximation +/- 1km.
Irish claims
Remove "though nearer to the rock than mainland Great Britain" as both redundant (it's explained above) and irrelevant to any claim.
United Kingdom's claims
The nearest permanently inhabitable land to Rockall is Hirta, and the nearest actually inhabited land is North Uist, both of which are in the United Kingdom (see above). In 1997 the United Kingdom ratified the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.......
Notes: Removed Ardnamurchan, Aird an Runair etc and placed lat/longs as notes in the "Nearest land". The references need sorting out properly and the distances to Iceland etc. finding.
^St Kilda is approximately WGS84 Latitude North 57° 49' 40.8", Longitude West 8° 38 ' 59.7".
^Aird an Runair is approximately WGS84 Latitude North 57° 36' 9.7", Longitude West 7° 32' 56.4".
^ Ardnamurchan is approximately WGS84 Latitude North 56° 43' 38.3", Longitude West 6° 13' 38.1".
- - - - -
No
Neither Britain nor Ireland currently claim the rock as part of their land. Historically Ireland's claim was based on its distance from a mainland, while Britain's was based on its distance from the islands. Iceland and Denmark claim that such distance arguments are only valid to the edge of the continental shelf. Thus the Rockall Trough would limit any claim that either Britain or Ireland can make. Denmark does not base its claim on distance, but rather that Rockall is part of the same (undersea) mountain chain as the Faroes. In other words, if sea levels dropped which land would Rockall be joined to? answer: Faroe Islands ClemMcGann (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about what you mean by "no". I don't know very much about the political history, but it strikes me that if claims are or were based on distance from a mainland, that France might have a claim, Ireland and GB being themselves islands. I think they should be told.BenMacDui09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The former Irish claim was based on the distance between Rockall and the mainland of Ireland. If we are discussing former claims than that should be said.
Just as the former British claim was based on the distance between Rockall and St Kilda. Which should also be said. There were some nuances about the status of inhabited islands, which need not be discussed, since there is now an agreement between Britain and Ireland; for what its worth the British position was somewhat compromised by their refusal to recognize a newly created volcanic island off Iceland giving extra fishing territory
Since the Danish and Icelandic cases are not based on distance, their distances are irrelevant, so there is no need to ascertain them
Their claim is that the depth of the Rockall Trough denies both Britain and Ireland rights to the Rockall Bank
However a compromise between the competing sides (Britain and Ireland) versus (Faeroes and Iceland) may well be agreed in May 2009. An update on progress would be useful
I have doubts about the amount of space being given to the British claims in 1955 and the Loftus Irish claim. They are, with the benefit of hindsight, rather foolish
I fear all the claims merely exhibit relative degrees of foolishness, but that's just an opinion of course. I understand from the above that you are (in general) happy with the proposed changes, except the one to the Irish claims section. I'm just going to proceed with the rest and maybe modify and add a fact tag to that phrase. If the issue is verifiable, there is no reason for it not to stay. BenMacDui14:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hebrides?
I've restored Rockall to the Hebrides template; while it may be disputed, dispute is not proof of not belonging.MRM (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
A communiqué issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 7 May 1985 announced the designation of not only the seabed in the immediate vicinity of the Faroes but also a vast area of the Rockall plateau to the south west. The press release which accompanied the communiqué indicated that the legal basis of this designation was the assumption that "the Faroe Islands are part of the microcontinent" formed by the "Faroes-Rockall Plateau", an "elevated plain with its summit in the Faroe Islands". [3]ClemMcGann (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think all the claims are valid and although, as a rock itself, it's worthless, it should be divvied up among the various claimants like Antarctica. But that's not going to happen.MRM (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
curiosities
In 1984 Donegal man Jack Lavelle drowned attempting to reach Rockall. The dead man’s two colleagues were found shipwrecked on the Donegal coast after being missing at sea for more than a week.
In 1985 Donegal TD (member of Parliament) Pat “The Cope” Gallagher claimed Rockall as part of his constituency stating, “It is the wealthiest part of any constituency in the Irish Republic, surrounded as it is by thousands of square miles of unpolluted fishing grounds and large untapped reserves of oil and natural gas.”
The earliest recorded landing on the island was on 8 July 1810 when a Royal Navy officer named Basil Hall led a small landing party from the frigate HMS Endymion to the summit. The frigate was taking depth measurements around Rockall when it drifted away in a haze. The expedition made a brief attempt to find the frigate in the haze, but soon gave up and returned to Rockall. After the haze became a fog, the lookout sent to the top of Rockall spotted the ship again, but it turned away from Rockall before the expedition in their boats reached it. Finally, just before sunset, the frigate was again spotted from the top of Rockall, and the expedition was able to get back on board. The crew of the Endymion reported that they had been searching for five or six hours, firing their cannon every ten minutes. Hall related this experience and other adventures in a book entitled Fragment of Voyages and Travels Including Anecdotes of a Naval Life.
The above appears to be a bit of WP:OR, in that it was the "UK of Ireland & GB". That Ireland was a part of UK then as Scotland was. It follows that Ireland too could use this reference as a claim on the "rock". PurpleA (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous claim, as it would depend on the various Home Rule bills passing on any UK claim to this territory to the new Irish state. That's about as tenable as claiming that for 25 years the Irish Free State was a colonial power over India! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That did happen here [4]. The remaining UK only kept six of the counties of Ireland in the north, with the rest of Ireland going to "Southern Ireland". That would include various islands etc. My point is that the reference is a bit of OR, and of dubious value. PurpleA (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not between Ireland & Britain - there is an agreement between the two on the exploration rights (although Ireland had not relinquished its claim to the rock)
This issue is between those two (Irl & UK) and the other two (Denmark & Iceland)
Their claim is not based on distance but on depth. The Law of the Sea limits claims to the edge of the continental shelf.
If they are correct then neither the Irish or British claim is valid. (Iceland cedes the rock to Denmark)
By "did happen here", just which part of the 1920 GoI Act transferred any of the UK's previous territorial or colonial claims to the Irish parliament, rather than retaining all of them for the benefit of GB? Nor is the 1810 claim based on distance to anywhere, but rather on being the first landing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Andy - sorry, but, the Law of the Sea, which the UK signed up to, does not recognize being first as a legitimate claim ClemMcGann (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Then by all means make it clear that this landing doesn't convey a valid claim, and clarify whether or not in conveyed a valid claim in 1810. Re-arrange the whole 1810 landing to a section about landings and shipwrecks if you wish, and move it far away from the section on claims.
However PurpleA's claim above appears to be that this first landing by an Englishman is now grounds for some form of claim by Ireland, which is simply ridiculous. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ireland's claim was never based on that landing. When it was being made, it was based on distance to mainland. However I suspect that PurpleA is pointing out an amusing known flaw in the 1920 Act. Consider the wording For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, and Southern Ireland shall consist of so much of Ireland as is not comprised within the said parliamentary counties and boroughs. From this wording the South gets all the islands and territorial seas!!!
As for being there first, there is a legend that a hermit monk called Peter lived on the rock, eating seabirds and fish. Incredible, I suppose, but looking at Skellig Michael, perhaps. According to the story, he was Irish, but his home monastery was in Iceland
I moved the UK claim from the opening down to where the UK case is discussed. Since there is no agreement the wording needs to be changed. or perhaps there will be an agreement in May ? ClemMcGann (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Is someone going to change the misleading opening? The conference this year will not discuss sovereignty of the rock, because no-one except wikipedia editors cares, or doubts the Uk claim.---
The ownership of Rockall is disputed as are the exploration and fishing rights on the Rockall Bank. A meeting between the countries involved (the United Kingdom, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), Ireland and Iceland), is scheduled for May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.60.29 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
while parts of the article are in need of attention, just what is wrong with the sentence quoted? Ireland has proposed a division of the Rockall Bank. Other than that I am unaware of any set agenda. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
UK Claim (again)
A LOT OF CONFUSION CREATED WHEN THERE IS NONE.
No sovereign state rejects the UK claim to the Rockal Islet; this is effecticely made clear WAY TOO FAR DOWN THIS ARTICLE. Yes, beyond the UK EEZ it's pretty much a free-for-all. The UK is entitled to claim sovereignty of the Islet, and indeed it does. This could be made clearer.
Suggest split article into 1) Rockall Islet 2)Rockall area terratorial issues.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.245 (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2009
Correction - every nation which has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has accepted the UK right to claim sovereignty over the Rockall Islet and Hasselwood Rock. If you're waiting for other nations to pass 'Rockall belongs to the UK' bills - that's not going to happen. Nations don't formally accept the Flannan Isles are part of the UK. Unless they're in a formal dispute over a certain territory, they just accept the whatever a state claims is part of the state. A good example is the CIA World Factbook which explicitely accepts Rockall as part of the UK. A key point has been missed - this article DOES say that the UK has sovereignty over the Rockall Islet. If this is accepted (and it surely must be because it's what the article says) then it should be more prominent. The article makes it look like the contemporary disputes are about the islet, whereas they're about the wider areas describes as 'Rockall'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.134.245 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Rockall might belong to the UK - in the future - if the Irish proposal to the May 2009 conference is accepted. But right now it is disputed. The proposal may be rejected. (I understand that there are difficulties). The UK and Ireland broadly agree with each other. Iceland and Denmark broadly agree with each other.
You mention the Law of the sea. [6] This limits the continental shelf to 2,500m - the depth of the Rockall Trough - this deep trough lies beteween the Rockall Bank and Europe. This interpretation would exclude both the UK and Ireland from Rockall. Rockall would be Danish! "the Faroe Islands are part of the microcontinent" formed by the "Faroes-Rockall Plateau", an "elevated plain with its summit in the Faroe Islands". see[7]
While Ireland has an agreement with the UK on the exploration of the sea-bed (The Anglo-Irish Continental Shelf Agreement of 7 November 1988, published in the Treaty Series as No. 1 of 1990) and Rockall lies within the UK exploration area, Ireland did not cede the rock. see [8]
I agree that the article is confusing, reflecting many edits by many editors. I had hoped that the matter would be clarified at the May meeting. I am now less confident of that. However we cannot yet say that Rockall is part of the UK as no other country agrees. No more that we can say that it is Danish (only Iceland agrees with that). ClemMcGann (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Amateur radio visit section, constantly being deleted.
Will anyone support me, to have this section permanently reverted? It contains the visit in 2005, and the almost successful one in 2008. It is obvious that the person constantly deleting it, wishes have no mention of any recent visits or recent attempts. To suit their own agenda. This person claims that it is unnotable! Furthermore, has a history of edit wars. However if do not receive any support, I am willing to abide by an administrator's or neutral third party's decision. Sulasgeir (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Coming from a totally disinterested party, the mention seems to be relevant but the sources could be improved (at the moment two of four links are dead for me and one is not entirely reliable). It has been part of the article since June 2006 and the fact that it has been unilaterally removed without discussion does not seem productive. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c)02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is for this person to have to justify removing it and not for me to have to justify reverting it. The section should stay, unless there is majority view that it should be removed. Sulasgeir (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Saying that I removed the section to suit my own agenda is quite ridiculous!
The text is completely unnotable and fails all the notability guidelines for inclusion. There is no "Significant coverage", there are no "Reliable Sources" and most importantly the sources are not "Independent of the subject". ie. excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. This is clearly not the case. It is all self promotion.
The text is about as helpful as if I attempted to go to Rockall myself and wrote a blog. This is an encyclopedia and text is like this is completely unjustified.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Heavens!! - If you did go to Rockall myself and wrote a blog - I would consider that to be notable and worthy of inclusion!
Personally, I'm more interested in the politics of the rock and am awaiting the result of the May conference, before overhauling the article (but - from what I hear - might be a damp squib - without any progress)
In response to MusicInTheHouse- there's one flaw I see with your argument, and it's that you're citing notability guidelines to regulate article content, a task for which they are specifically and explicitly not intended. Now, I may be nitpicking here, but it's an important point considering your argument seems to hinge on some oft-cited lines from the notability guidelines. In considering however your point, I believe your intent is to oppose the inclusion per WP:UNDUE. Of course, as I don't have a significant interest in either this subject or this dispute, I have no idea if opposition based on undue weight is appropriate, but I think it's important to get the reasons straight. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, WP:UNDUE would be more appropriate here indeed; although the same argument still applies. This content is only here because some person that goes by the name of Andy Strangeway has thought about going to to rock, even though he actually hasn't done anything yet. Indeed the section is only there because the editor opposed to the deletion said that "Andy Strangeway asked me "to correct the facts about May 2008" Is this really worth the same as knowing the geography of the rock itself? This is meant to be serious encyclopedia, including this content would be a backwards step.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's an encyclopedia. Not a "serious" one per se. We have all kinds of content here. Now, it's important to qualify whether these expeditions are "significant", or if the inclusion thereof is just a result of recentism. I will say this however; considering that there are many mentions of expeditions in earlier sections of the article, which are surely more significant than these recent ones, if we judge some of this to be significant, would it not be more prudent to include the content in the earlier sections, and as such giving them due weight relative to the other expeditions? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
We can easily judge whether this is significant enough through analysation of sources. There are none, the content is only there because as the other editor said "Andy Strangeway asked me "to correct the facts about May 2008"" so therefore it's easy to qualify whether this deserves to be in an encyclopedia or not. The answer is no.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
To discount an event simply because the editor contributed the content at the prodding of someone closely involved with the event doesn't seem right. And frankly, that the expeditions (or at least some of them) happened can be supported by the references given- that they occurred is not particularly contentious. But as to their significance... I'll grant that the failed ones probably don't merit mention, but the successful one may, especially considering that expeditions seem uncommon, and this one was flanked with failures. If it's just a publicity stunt, certain details may merit shortening or omission, but the fact is an expedition appears to have taken place. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I had an Edit Conflict (I had been sitting on it for a while) so I'll just leave my original response and if it doesn't seem to flow with the rest of the comments, I apologize.
The requirement that it have significant coverage, in practice, relates to the overall notability of the subject of the article. Uncontroversial facts that can be verified by at least one reliable source can reasonably be included as background for a notable overall topic. It does appear, however, that the sources (that I can get to) are not reliable by themselves. The Register, in general, is borderline and in this case appears very borderline and the Island Man is just not independently reliable. There doesn't seem to be a lot happening at Rockall and a charity event seems noteworthy so long as it is not a cheap publicity stunt. The key is going to be sources - everything in the disputed section needs a source that can be verified and so far, I don't see that.
So the questions to be answered are:
Is there a reliable source for all of the information?
I've waited a while and no new sources have been inserted and therefore judgement on its notability has become null and void as having no reliable sources means it should be removed anyway. Therefore I'm being bold and removing the section. If someone disagrees with this I'm happy to discuss the issue again but it appears the above discussion has stalled at no consensus either way.MITH21:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The CLCS aren't discussing this until September. I quote "The consideration of the partial submission made by Ireland will be included in the provisional agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the Commission to be held in New York from 10 August to 11 September 2009."[10] (The same goes for the UK's submission[11]) Ireland's submission[12] follows the existing boundary with the UK as previously agreed in 1988, which was based on oil licensing blocks and left Rockall well within UK waters. Iceland's submission from April "does not cover the continental shelf of Iceland in the Hatton-Rockall area, which is subject to overlapping claims by other States, or in the eastern part of Reykjanes Ridge which potentially overlaps the Hatton-Rockall area. In order not to prejudice questions relating to the delimitation of boundaries between States in the Hatton-Rockall area, a submission for both of these areas will be made at a later stage."[13] and Denmark have not submitted a claim on behalf of Faroese yet (CLCS website was last updated on 12 May). In my opinion, the map on page 3 of Ireland's submission clearly shows that Ireland no longer have any claims of Rockall. Can we amend the article to reflect this?Liam Mason (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a failure of diplomacy. I was hoping for some clarification before amending. To put it bluntly, the Danes are being difficult. The issue is where the continental shelf ends. Iceland and Denmark say that the Rockall Trough limits Britain and Ireland. Ireland and Britain disagree. The Irish case is based on "foot of slope points" gathered by surveys carried out by RV Celtic Explorer and ILV Granuaile. Ireland presented a reasonably full submission [14]. Iceland and Britain also presented submissions. Denmark did not [15]. While there were exchanges of positions, there were no formal talks in May 2009. Britain and Ireland are anxious that this will be resolved at the August/September meeting. Denmark does not agree. Denmark says that it cannot be considered until they make their submission and they have until 2014 to do so. It is curious that Denmark specifically object to considering Ireland's submission and not that of the United Kingdom. ClemMcGann (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
First visit
The first visit to the island has the first visitors left on the island while their ship drifted away. I have two questions that this article doesn't answer: How was the report of their landing reach civilization? Did they get off or not? Val4204:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
There's actually little doubt that some Vikings will have known about the island. It's right between Ireland, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, all of which were Viking centers in the 9th-10th century. And the Vikings would have been alerted by the drift of birds to the rock, long before it came into view. They wouldn't have settled it, though... /Strausszek (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Article structure
I was hoping that we would have some news in May. I lack any reaction to the Danish 2014 [16]. Perhaps there will be some sort of reaction.
However the article itself needs an overhaul. Since there are no Danish editors (are there?), we should take care not to misrepresent their position ClemMcGann (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
British Claim: Location within the UK
Do the British claim Rockall as part of the UK proper? If so, is it considered by the British to be part of Scotland, or Northern Ireland? (I doubt it would be considered part of England or Wales.) Or do the British claim Rockall as some kind of crown dependency or overseas territory? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Britain claims that Rockall is part of Scotland. Ireland claims that Rockall is part of County Donegal, but are prepared to allow Britain to exploit the surrounding seabed. Denmark claims that Rockall is part of the Faroes. Iceland supports Denmark's claim (or to be more accurate they deny the British and Irish claims) - ClemMcGann (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Confusing Map
Hi, the map is pretty confusing. The only shaded area readily apparent is the purple area - the other areas are practically invisible. Is it possible to turn up the shading a little? Also, the map indicates the EEZ for each country, yet the text suggests that the UK, for example, no longer includes it as part of the EEZ? Is the map wrong? --HighKing (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The map is not wrong. It is based on good sources. Where do we say that the UK no longer includes in its EEZ? On the contrary, the article says this, and it is well sourced Rockall is within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) claimed by the United Kingdom.EEZ of the UKEEZ of Ireland. And elsewhere we say that Ireland and the UK have agreed their median line. What the Law of the Sea says is that the UK can't 'island hop', it can't assert a new 200 mile EEZ around Rockall. It also says that Rockall is irrelevant to continental shelf rights. --Red King (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps 'confusing' would be a better word than 'wrong'. The reality is that there are overlapping claims. The rock is within the EEZ claimed by the UK - but that claim is disputed by Denmark and Iceland - and although Ireland agrees the EEZ claim, it does not cede the rock.
The 1988 Anglo-Irish Continental Shelf Delimitation Agreement did place the rock on the UK side of that line, but the status of the rock was not considered. Ireland has not conceded ownership of the rock, see [[17]] "At present the United Kingdom claims a 12-mile territorial sea around Rockall, a claim which, depending as it does on jurisdiction over the rock, Ireland has likewise not accepted.". Now it is probable, in the future, that Ireland and the UK will agree, but until Denmark fully states the basis of its claims, I cannot foresee such an agreement. The agreement was reached in response to the claims of Iceland and Denmark that the Rockall Trough marked the limit of the European continental shelf. This would exclude both the United Kingdom and Ireland from the Rockall Bank and give a vast swathe to the west of Ireland to Iceland.
For that great swathe, look at this icelandic map. [18] The Icelandic claim in that map is enacted in Icelandic law [19]. If our map was 'correct' it should reflect that law, just as it should reflect UK and Irish law - however as they contradict each other - I would prefer that we used this blank map. (The icelandic map does not claim the rock, however their arguments would exclude both Ireland and the UK giving it to Denmark) The Danes have formally rejected the UK law but have yet to enact their own. We may have to wait until 2014 ClemMcGann (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Administration
IP 93.152.50.89 has added Britain as administrator of the rock. No one actually administers it. The only administration to be done is that radio beacon to warn shipping. It was placed there by Greenpeace (it is solar-powered). Since the ownership is disputed and there is no government administration, the field should be blank. If you think otherwise, then please say so here, with reasons. ClemMcGann (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
"Law of the sea" and "Conflicting claims" sections
After quick reading of these sections I'd like to make a couple of points:
"Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland all acceded to the convention. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention on 25 July 1997." This means that all four acceded. I assume what is meant is that the first three acceded when the convention was promulgated. If so, that should be stated (and sourced).
The remainder of the section has more to do with conflicting claims than law of the sea; it should be moved to the next section.
"The twenty-fourth session of the Commission to be held in New York from 10 August to 11 September 2009" is not a sentence. I assume it means "was to be held"? Something more specific would help: "was scheduled" or "was expected".
"Rockall 2011 is an expedition to be undertaken by Nick Hancock in order to raise money for the charity Help for Heroes. The challenge is to land on Rockall and survive solo for 60 days thereby setting a record for the longest occupation of Rockall. It is proposed that this landing will coincide with the 200th anniversary of the first recorded landing on Rockall, by the Royal Navy in 1811." This has nothing to do with history or conflicting claims. It should be moved.
That does not require any discussion whereas to your other effort, Ireland does not have a representative qualified legally or otherwise. You could make Rockall into Ireland in the morning and get the UN to call them that but to make true sense you would have to give to original Ireland a different name and get the UN to use that too. The same goes for Eire and Eireann (a distant air fading in the background "and the greedy hands... ... grabbing to the fore...") ~ R.T.G14:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Basically they met [20] received 35 submissions from various states of both argumentative and joint efforts about various sea waters, told them that they had accepted their submissions, that they would meet again, and for those who hadn't wored it out themselves yet why don't you all just sort it out yourself in the meantime because there was a sharp increase in the number of subissions this time (I quick look would seem that they made few or no recommendations beyond that advice). It was the 24th such recommendation by the chairman of which there appears to be two recommendations each year, UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea scroll down to Statements_by_the_Chairman_of_the_Commission~ R.T.G16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Icelandic claims in the area" section it says
Iceland considers St Kilda to be "a minuscule, effectively uninhabited, islet, categorized under article 121(3) of the Law of the Sea Convention". Furthermore St Kilda lies outside the British territoral sea limit. Therefore it is not an "equitable basepoint for an equidistant line": citing "Ireland and the Law of the Sea".
Firstly the references to St Kilda make no sense and should surely be to Rockall itself; secondly should ICELAND actually be IRELAND and this belongs in a different section?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 07:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The UK claim on Rockall is based on St Kilda being the nearest land. The UK then draws a line midway (equidistant line) between St Kilda and the neighours (Faroe, Iceland, Donegal). Iceland rejects the UKs right to use St Kilda in this fashion, instead Ardnamurchan Point should be used. Since St Kilda does not have permanent inhabitants, they might have a legal case. During the Cod Wars a new volcanic island was formed off Iceland. At the time the UK objected to Iceland extending its fishing limit by using the uninhabitable new island as a basepoint.
Although their submission to the Law of the Sea conference used a different argument against the UK claim, the claim that the UK cannot claim beyond the edge of the continental shelf, this would give large tracts of British sea-bed to Iceland. (also a bigger tract of Irelands claim) consider this map: [21] Note the yellow and green (UK & Irish) claims are overlapped by the larger red Icelandic claim
No, it should not be Ireland. Ireland accepts the UKs right to use St Kilda for sea-bed and fishing rights. (but not ownerships of Rockall)
The cite used was a book called Ireland and the Law of the Sea
There used to be a paragraph giving the distances to the nearest land (the basis of the UK claim) but its gone - don't know why
The Icelandic remark seems a little muddled as St Kilda is an archipelago, not a single island. But as this is presumably a quote I have removed my disputed tag. Thanks for the clarification.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 15:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Understanding OSGB geometry
I've put the reference to Rockall being in grid square MC **if** the OSGB grid was extended to cover it. I do understand the OSGB geometry, thank you very much, I've been using it and writing code to do OSGB conversions for years. It it clear in the reference that the link is to a mock-up, and yes it is a personal page, most of the pages on the internet are personal pages. All OSGB calculation programs I have tested that allow out-of-grid values put translate 57°35'48"N, 13°41'19"W, to OSGB MC:03500:16580. The Geograph project is sufficiently satisfied with Rockall pretending to be in grid square MC that they put it in grid square MC. Effectively, I **am** the quoted reference for the OSGB location of Rockall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgharston (talk • contribs) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Dubious
Martin Martin
The article states that the first literally reference is in A description of the Western Islands of Scotland: By Martin Martin The book is on-line [22] and [23] Perhaps I'm blind, but I cannot find the reference ClemMcGann (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I took the time to read the whole excerpt about Hirt/Kilda from the original looking print version, as well as a lot of the rest of it. The writer describes "inferior islands" so I used the search engine on the modernised version to search for "rock" and "inferior" of which there were more than 100 matches. I read around each one. There appears to be no knowledge of Rockall in the book or the translation let alone a name for it. A search on the translation version for "rockb" returns only "river of Crockbreck". I didn't read about the Orkneys but that wouldn't be a place to mention Rockall anyway, would it? The section after the stories of Hirt/Kilda, where the reader might expect any information about Rockall to be, was Mr Martins thorough documentation of the gift of second sight, he swears blind the visitor and inhabitants recieve on Scottish islands. Albeit, I do not doubt the sincerity of the book otherwise. He describes groups of islands as nations and all but one as Irish language speaking (one being Skye where two tribes spoke Irish and one English). i.e. I read most of it for an hour or two now and nothing about Rockall. Good read though. ~ R.T.G18:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I read around each one until he went on about second sight which appeared to be the end on the islands in the book, sorry. The first link does not appear to include that book and doesn't return any hits for Rokol. ~ R.T.G22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"This isle is by the inhabitants called Hirt, and likewise by all the Western Islanders; Buchanan calls it Hirta; Sir John Narbrough, and all seamen call it St. Kilda; and in sea maps St. Kilder, particularly in a Dutch sea map from Ireland to Zeland, published at Amsterdam by Peter Goas in the year, 1663, wherein the isle of St. Kilda is placed due west betwixt fifty and sixty miles from the middle of the Lewis, and the isle answers directly to the fifty-eighth degree of northern latitude, as marked upon the ends of the map, and from it lies Rokol, a small rock sixty leagues to the westward of St. Kilda; the inhabitants of this place call it Rokabarra; this map contains the soundings of some places near St. Kilda; these not exceeding twenty or thirty fathom, it contains only the larger isle and a part of the lesser isles; this island is also called St. Kilda, by a company of French and Spaniards, who lost their ship at Rokol in the year 1686, which they nam’d to the inhabitants of St. Kilda, whose latitude is fifty-seven degrees and three minutes."
The second reference above notes that Martin published several books which included material from each other. This paragraph comes from a different version of the book to the one which appear in the original printing in the first source reference.Eregli bob (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Picture of Hasselwood Rock?
Several people on the internet have been looking for a picture of Hasselwood Rock. Comparing the map at [24] with the picture of the western side of Rockall at [25], it seems to me that Hasselwood Rock is the black thing on the left that looks like a whale. This conforms to other descriptions of the Rock (like have the size of about 1m). I'm tempted to link to that website as a picture of Rockall and Hasselwood Rock. Can any of the experts confirm this? P345 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a breaking wave in File:Rockall-photo.JPG displayed in the article in the same position that suggests this, but I have no other information I'm afraid. BenMacDui17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Administration vs. Claimancy
I propose making an edit to the Rockall infobox on the grounds that the UK seems to be the only country to actually land on the rock, plant the flag and claim it, as well as putting the plaque on Hall's ledge. I think that it would be more accurate to continue to list Denmark, Ireland and Iceland as 'claiming' the rock, and change the UK to 'administering' it. The UK, as the article correctly states, only claimes a 12nm radius around the rock, so it seems to me that the disagreements regarding the terratorial claims to the shelf as discussed in the article are largely disconnected from the claims to the rock itself. Although all four parties claim the area, Denmark, Ireland and Iceland seem to only be interested in the shelf, whereas the UKs interest centres on the rock.
Today (Wednesday) Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus was laid to rest. He added "Rockall" to his name so that his commitment to the Irish claim on the rock would be on the ballot paper.
Denmark's stance means that the dispute cannot be resolved before 2014. Iceland no longer claims the rock, acknowledging the Faroe Island’s claim. Iceland and Denmark hold that British and Irish claims must end at the edge of the continental shelf, at the Rockall Trough, well short of the rock. As the trough is more than 3,000 meters deep, they have an arguable case in international law. Britain and Ireland came to an agreement [26] on a division of the seabed, which places Rockall about twelve miles inside the British zone. Curiously Ireland did not drop its claim to the rock. This agreement has been denounced by Denmark and Iceland. They have come to their own “understanding”, giving Rockall to The Faroe Islands and a huge swathe to the west of Ireland to Iceland! Look at the map in this document (Icelandic law) http://www.reglugerd.is/interpro/dkm/WebGuard.nsf/5ed2a07393fec5fa002569b300397c5a/38f26e401b30f07700256a62004cf3f6/$FILE/196-1985.doc
What does “administrating” mean? You mention the plaque; it was swept into the sea. The only “administrating” that I can think of is the solar-powered radio beacon. It was placed by Greenpeace, when they claimed Rockall as a micro-nation called “Waveland”
I believe that there were two beacons installed in the 50s and 60s prior to the Greenpeace beacon, and both were installed by the UK - whether by Trinity House or the RN I'm not sure.
The majority of visitors to the island have been UK citizens, and all those to stay for any length have been.
Because of this I think that it would be accurate to put the UK as administering the island - whether or not it is UK terratory, as obviously the terratorial rights are disputed.
I'd like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind here, and only want an accurate article.
There was a beacon installed by the RN circa 1955 when they were testing some rocket (might have been blue streak). The FO wrote to the Irish govt who said ok. there was some attempt in the early days to make something of that exchange. was the UK seeking permission? and acknowledging the Irish claim? Did the Irish reply acknowledge the UK claim? did it surrender Irish rights? was the civil servant empowered to do so? - but that is all ancient history.
Trinity House never put a beacon on it, the RN did and it was washed away. Greenpeace did. Although I understand that it stopped functioning recently.
That beacon is the only form of "administration" on the rock
Counting visitors. Well the first recorded has to be Brendan, if its true. Then there is the Icelandic legend of Peter the Hermit, the idea of someone surviving on birds, fish and rainwater seems far fetched until we consider Skellig Michael.
Please explain what you mean by "administered"? No one administers the rock. The Island of Rockall Act was immediately denounced by the other claimants and has no recognition. Now that the UK has accepted the Law of the Sea, the Act is effectively nullified. The real international law issues are: Is St Kilda a valid median point? and Is Rockall beyond the continental shelf? (If it is, if the Rockall trough marks the edge of the continental shelf then the British and Irish claims are invalid) ClemMcGann (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
But only 'in force' in the United Kingdom. It has no force anywhere else and, according to the overriding UN Law of the Sea to which the UK is a signatory, it has no meaningful status. --Red King (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Fishing Rights
My interest in Rockall lies in my work in fisheries protection with the Scottish Government. There is an acceptance that the UK doesn't have an agreed EEZ under UNCLOS but does have fishing limits with "grey areas" i.e. agreements between UK & Faroes and UK & Ireland where limits are disputed - Rockall falls outwith both these grey areas. While clearly it's the seabed claims that are the main source of contention, there appears to be little fuss about the fishing rights - as part of the EU, Ireland have full access (outwith 12nm limit of Rockall) and Faroes have access under the EU-Faroes agreement, but Iceland have no access. The Scottish Government are responsible for enforcing fishing legislation at Rockall, which is accepted by the Irish Navy (who can request permission from the SG to patrol there) and Faroese authorities (who have no interest in patrolling as they rely on Danish Navy assistance). I suspect that this acceptance is due to the fact that the activity in the area is overwhelming by Scottish vessels. The article doesn't reflect the difference between fishing limits and EEZ and the agreement between the countries on this matter. What I don't want to do is to start an edit war by making amendments, so grateful for some advice/assistance. Liam Mason (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
No. The UN CLCS is to consider ownership of the Rockall Bank. The sea mount that sticks above the water line in calm weather is entirely irrelevant. That is what the Law of the Sea says. I see trolls. --Red King (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Icelandic claims in the area.
This paragraph needs updating, but I am no marine lawyer
In 2001, Iceland began working on its submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf; it is scheduled to finish in 2007. The most important aspect of this work is to survey the entire ocean floor in the areas claimed outside the EEZ and, in Iceland's case, a part of the area inside the EEZ as well. In all, 1.3 million square kilometres (500,000 sq mi) have been surveyed by Icelandic marine research institutions for this purpose, an area 13 times larger than the land area of Iceland. The commission does however not make proposals regarding areas that are claimed by two or more states unless they have already reached an agreement on its division. Therefore Iceland's submission is expected to deal only with the area that just Iceland has claimed and not the Hatton-Rockall area. Iceland also hosted an informal meeting of all parties to the dispute in 2001. It was the first such meeting regarding the dispute where all four countries participated.
Referring to: "Rockall", playing on the similarity of the word to a then taboo expression
I would suggest that either the expression is still taboo or it should be named in the interest of clarity. It looks quite hypocritical now. AlexFekken (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that these words do not make it very clear what this is all about. But they do suggest that the "then taboo expression" is not a taboo anymore. So if it isn't then why not clarify the situation by naming the expression explicitly (as has apparently already been done in the meantime), otherwise remove the word "then" and call it "a taboo expression" to avoid the hypocrisy and justify the lack of clarity. Clear now? AlexFekken (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I changed "certain points of time year-round" to "seasonally"; Red King replied, "'Seasonally' implies 'during the summer', Try 'intermittently'."
To me seasonally means 'only at certain times of year (every year)' (not necessarily summer!), while intermittently implies 'irregularly'. It would help to know what's really going on! —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has this statement: Rockall was formed approximately 55 million years ago, when the ancient continent of Laurasia was split apart by plate tectonics. Greenland and Europe separated and the north-east Atlantic Ocean was formed between them.[27]
I'm not sure this is true. The Mid-Atlantic ridge is the dividing line between North America and Europe. You can see from the picture on its Article that this line runs through Iceland and is far to the west of Rockall (just compare to the picture at the top of the Rockall article).
thats where the current position of the ridge is. Most of the floor of the Atlantic Ocean was created at the mid-atlantic ridge, and then spread apart to the east and west as the ridge continued to separate and to create more sea-floor. So the fact that an island isn't on the ridge now, doesn't mean that it wasn't on the ridge when it was created.Eregli bob (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, the Rockall article also has this statement: "The islet of Rockall makes up the eroded core of an extinct volcano (a volcanic plug)." This directly contradicts the idea that it is a piece of Laurasia left in the middle when the continent split. Both of these statements can't be true, one must be false and needs to be removed from the article.
I've hopefully clarified the statement - the rocks that from Rockall are part of a deeply eroded volcano, the missing bit is that it was part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province, which was associated with the final break-up of Laurasia. Mikenorton (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikilinks
Just finished removing a ton of redundant wikilinks. Redundant as in repeated. The guidelines say only the first instance of a specific term should be wikilinked not every instance. There are no doubt more left but i'm annoyed now at how many the article had. Mabuska(talk)22:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The annoyance came out of the fact i did it section by section as i found them rather than editing the whole article as a whole. My bad, but thanks anyways. Mabuska(talk)10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Repeated doesn't mean redundant, nor do the guidelines say this.
A link should not be repeated within the same section. If the link target is obscure and it's used in two sections some distance apart (frequently one is an infobox or image caption) then its reasonable to repeat the link. The point is to make the most readable article possible - an excess of links dilutes the prominence of the relevant links. However a term late in the article that could be linked, especially when a section is being read in isolation, often ought to be linked if it's a reasonable navigation link to a term that's otherwise unclear, and when the reader would otherwise have to search the article from the top to find the one and only linked instance of the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
That i did not know, however regardless there was still way too many repeated wikilinks, and i doubt the ones for countries would need to be repeated after first instance as they are pretty obvious. Mabuska(talk)10:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I was just thinking that those ones would possibly merit being wikilinked more than once in a long article. Though obviously not in every sub-section, but rather each main section? Mabuska(talk)10:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Administration
No nation administers Rockall. The only administration on Rockall is the radio beacon. It was put there by Greenpeace. An earlier beacon was British, but it was washed away in a storm. Greenpeace claim that Rockall is an independent nation called Waveland. The ownership of the rock and surrounding seabed is disputed. There is an agreement between Ireland and the UK. There is an understanding between Iceland and Denmark. In their submission to the LoS Iceland and Denmark claim that the Rockall Trough is sufficiently deep as to mark the limit of the European continental shelf, so neither Britain nor Ireland are entitled to anything. In international law they have a good case. Ireland carried out a seismic survey of the area by RV Celtic Explorer and ILV Granuaile. An undersea mound in the Rockall trough was located. Ireland and Britain claim that this permits them to claim beyond the trough. The UK submission to the LoS acknowledges that the UK claim is based on Irish data. Iceland and Denmark now contend that this mound is just soft mud and therefore cannot be regarded as permanent and therefore can’t support the Irish and British extension of the continental shelf. So we are back to the UN and the LoS. To further complicate matters Iceland has proposed that the Rockall bank be divided into four parts by agreement between the four nations. Denmark has not agreed to this.
As for claims over the rock itself: The Danish claim is based on depth – not on distance. In Danish law, Rockall is Danish by the Royal Decree No. 259 of 7 June 1963. The UK claim is in the Island of Rockall Act 1972. Iceland and Norway recognise the Danish claim. Although Ireland and the UK have an agreement on the seabed, which places Rockall ten miles inside the British zone, Ireland has not withdrawn its claim to the rock. The difference depends on the status of the island of St Kilda, and whether “island hopping” is valid. If islands are ignored then Rockall is nearer to Donegal than to Scotland. Ireland has indicated that if the Irish and British claims over the seabed are accepted then Ireland would accept the British claim over the rock. But that has yet to happen.
So the rock itself is claimed by Waveland, Denmark, Ireland and the UK. The only actual administration is done by Waveland. In these circumstances ‘administration’ should be left blank. Lugnad (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
According to the UN Law of the Sea, the UK has control of the sea area that happens to include Rockall. Rockall itself has no status, it is an islet. It is for only for that reason that the 'Administered by' should be blank, and not for any of the reasons you give: it is because the question of administration is meaningless in the case of an intermittently submerged islet. Not however that the UK does not have control of the sea bed: the Faroes have a far more convincing argument of continuity of continental shelf (which is clearly broken wrt the UK – and wrt Ireland and Iceland for that matter). But as the UK has not agreed a sea-bed boundary with Iceland or Denmark, the question is still wide open. --Red King (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
In the Negotiations section:
"The parties have until May 2009 to submit reports to the commission, which it will take into account when determining the boundary."
Well that was three years ago, someone with some knowledge of the negotiations should edit this. Also:
" It is understood a final deal is not likely to be agreed at the Dublin meeting"
The Dublin conference was four years ago... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.30.220 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
According to their website rockallsolo.com it's now intended for the end of May 2012, so I've adjusted the text accordingly.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Within UK's exclusive economic zone - reference fails verification
The www.seaaroundus.org reference used to justify the claim that Rockall is located within the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone is fails verification.
The small print of the web site that is used as reference says:
"Disclaimer: Maritime limits and boundaries depicted on Sea Around Us Project maps are not to be considered as an authority on the delimitation of international maritime boundaries."
And goes on to say:
"it should be emphasized that our maps are not to be taken as the endorsement of one claim over another."
Regardless of what the sources do or do not state, Rockall, in accordance with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is located within the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone because it is within 200 nautical miles of the United Kingdom (Outer Hebrides) and no other country's territory. Rockall itself does not have an exclusive economic zone, nor is it entitled to one because it is an islet and therefore claims to Rockall itself do not affect the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone, which surrounds Rockall. Quite vivid blur (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
articles should not state things based on the speculation that there might be a reference found some day. the offending statement should be deleted 58.165.239.67 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
That's taking the point way too far. The source does not refute the claim nor does it imply the statement is false or inaccurate in any way. It merely has a wishy-washy disclaimer attached to it for whatever reason. A better source is needed is all. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me04:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The Scottish island used as the basis of the British claim is not inhabited year round, further clouding the basis of the British claim. The statement should be removed. The basis for all 4 claims are well described further down in the article. Cfs198 (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the statement down to the UK claims. Otherwise as per WP:NPOV, every argument and claim for and against would end up being presented in the lede, where it doesn't belong. --HighKing (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I've re instated the Fails Verification note to both the EEZ/seaaroundus.org references. For the reasons I gave at the start of this section.Sun Ladder (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Pronunciation and Finn McCool
First off, how is Rockall pronounced? Like rock + all or like rockle?
Second, the German article mentions a putative "Celtic legend" about Finn McCool creating Rockall by throwing a pebble into the Atlantic, which strikes me as highly dubious because there is no reliable proof that anyone even knew of Rockall in medieval times – sure, the name seems of medieval origin, but there is no evidence what it originally referred to. Our articles Fionn mac Cumhaill and Culture of Ireland do mention the legend, but without source. My suspicion is that the legend is a politically motivated invention of the 20th century popularised or even originated by The Wolfe Tones with their song "Rock On Rockall". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Pronunciation, Rockall on maps and Finn McCool
Hello, I'm new and don't know what I'm doing yet! Sorry!
Rocol, Rocal, Rokol, Rocabarraigh, Rochol, Sgeir Rocail, and Rockalldrangur are some other names for this islet. [citation needed]
Pronunciation of Rockall in English depends on dialect. Search youtube for Rockall - the first and third videos have examples of possible pronunciations.
I have only heard an English language version of the Ulster-Scots story of the giant Finn McCool.
My grandmother from the outskirts of Ballycastle in the north of county Antrim, Northern Ireland, told it to me as a folk tale. Passed down to her when she was a girl in the 1920s from her grandmother, who had heard the tale from her grandfather. Who was presumably was introduced to the story from his mother's side of the family because his father was an immigrant from England.
The story I was told concerns five landmarks. A Cave on the Scottish Island of Staffa, The Giant's Causeway in north Antrim, Loch Neagh, The Isle of Mann and Rockall. The closest approximation I have found so far, of the story I heard, is on http://fairyroom.com/2012/10/giants-causeway/
Anyway, my personal opinion is that the giant Finn McCool story I heard was first told after the first mass migration from Scotland and England arrived in Northern Ireland as part of a private colonisation which started in 1606. In 1609 the former King of Scotland and then King of England James the first, ordered an official colonisation.
So I can assure you Florian Blaschke (hopefully) that the legend of Finn McCool is not a recent invention and it is a possibility that Saint Brendan may have been aware of Rockall but obviously he wasn't a map maker.
This article needs serious attention, A recent Freedom of Information request showed that the UK Gov believe their claim to the island is no longer disputed. A map of EEZ claims by the Icelandic Gov also confirms this. This island isn't disputed. Rob (talk/edits) 02:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
![[18]](http://www.utanrikisraduneyti.is/media/Frettamyndir/landgrunnsk_hatton_rockall.jpg){kind=link}
