Talk:Rockall/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Describing Rockall as "British" in the first sentence

It appears that in May of last year the first sentence was changed to describe Rockall as "British". The very longstanding consensus before then was to leave a definite statement of ownership out of the initial sentence and to explain the status of the British claim in the introduction, where it can be dealt with neutrally.

Given that British ownership of Rockall is disputed (as described in the article), I don't see what benefit adding "British" to the first sentence does for the article except to advance one POV over another. Wikipedia policy, as well know, is to keep a neutral point of view.

We don't need to make bold claims. Simply state the undisputed facts. Then leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. --Tóraí (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That link goes to an Irish parliamentary debate from 1995, i.e. decades ago, long predating the much more recent determination of the EEZ which puts Rockall within UK waters.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the difference between a country's EEZ and its territory. Both UK and Ireland are have agreed where their EEZs lie (and Rockall lies in the UK's EEZ). However, the UK claim that Rockall is part of its territory is not recognised by Ireland (or anyone?).

Here's a more recent statement from the Irish government (2016): https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2016-10-26a.250

--Tóraí (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A statement by the Irish government, especially an overtly political one in parliament, is not a reliable source. Here is a reliable source on the matter:

The UK claimed Rockall in 1955 when a party of Royal Marines planted the Union Flag on it. Ireland, which is 270 miles away, disputed its ownership, but this was resolved in March 2014 when exclusive economic zone (EEZ) limits were published following an investigation by the United Nations.

— http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29539119

Well what can I say! The BBC can sometimes be wrong. A statement from the Irish government outlying the Irish government position in answer to a parliamentary question asking the Irish government's position is as definitive a source as you can get on the Irish government's position. :-D --Tóraí (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a nice summary of the position from last year. Bottom line: "For the moment though, the status of the Rockall remains that the UK claims is at part of its territory. While Ireland does not accept this claim, neither does it argue that Rockall is Irish." That matches the Irish government's parliamentary statement.

The corresponding article from the BBC equivocates from the BBC saying "[s]overeignty over the islet was settled in the UK's favour in 2014" to the former-EC representative in NI saying Rockall is "claimed by the UK" and was (only) "more or less resolved between the UK and Ireland in 2014".

How about something like, "Rockall is an uninhabited granite islet and is found within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the United Kingdom. It is claimed by the UK to be part of British sovereign territory, though this is disputed by Ireland." --Tóraí (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the current wording, as corrected from your "changes" reflects the correct position on sovereignty, unless a body such as the UN changes the position - the wording stands. David J Johnson (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Map of exclusive economic zones of the UK, Republic of Ireland, the Faroe Islands (Denmark) and Iceland around Rockall, United Kingdom (Description from Commons)

I agree with David. Nothing has changed regarding any political agreement(s). Rockall is British, as in part of the UK. It's also British as in part of the British Isles. I don't think that stating that Rockall is British in the lead violates NPOV at all. It helps readers from elsewhere in the world understand up front where Rockall is. If and when things change then the text can be changed. There no reason to say that Ireland disputes the UK claim unless they lodge some sort of formal dispute, which as far as I'm aware they haven't.

As an aside, I notice that a lot of the images have been swapped or removed recently. I must say I wasn't particularly fond of having two maps (File:Location map Rockall.jpg and File:Rockall, Irish EEZ.png) where one would suffice, but just having File:Oceans around British Isles satellite image location map.jpg in the infobox, as we have now, doesn't really work. I noticed that in one of the articles linked to above they used a high-quality map from the Commons (right). How about we use that in the infobox? nagualdesign 12:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There no reason to say that Ireland disputes the UK claim unless they lodge some sort of formal dispute, which as far as I'm aware they haven't.

A large part of the article deals with the disputed ownership. I've flagged it for now since its been an on-going source of remove-revert type edits since it was added to the article last year. It will get resolved eventually. I've also updated some of the text in the introduction, which seemed to think the dispute over sovereignty/ownership historical.

As a side note, there seems to be a running thread (both here in this discussion and in the article) that Rockall's location in the UK EEZ is relevant to sovereignty. I think we need to be careful of that as it is potentially confusing. The EEZ story is interesting in that Rockall's eventual status under UNCLOS meant he UK having to give up a very large portion of what it had claimed for its EEZ. --Tóraí (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant that there's no reason to state in the lead that Ireland currently disputes the UK claim, or imply that ownership is ambiguous by omitting the word 'British'. Most of the drive-by edits that have been reverted over the past few years boil down to people reading stuff in the paper, feeling a sense of righteous indignation, and coming to Wikipedia to 'put things right'. Most of them haven't really got a clue.

It is a confusing issue, to be fair. This isn't just about sovereignty, it's about whether ownership of the islet grants an extension to the EEZ (everyone agrees that it doesn't) and fishing rights and other ancillary claims. nagualdesign 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a ^[Disputed] tag seems a bit divisive! I know it means that the wording is disputed on Wikipedia but our readers might think that the claim itself is disputed, reaffirming the stuff they've read in the papers. That is the opposite of WP:NPOV. If you insist on arguing the toss, how about we change it to: Rockall /ˈrɒkɔːl/ is an uninhabited granite islet in the British Isles, and is found within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the United Kingdom. And what do you think about that image? nagualdesign 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues like these raise more suspicions among editors than are needed. And that leads editors to behave in ways they wouldn't otherwise.

The nearest islands to Rockall is St Kilda, which are undisputedly part of the United Kingdom. Yet, the authors of that article feel no need to declare St Kilda as being "British". The first sentence simply reads, "St Kilda is an isolated archipelago situated 64 kilometres west-northwest of North Uist, in the North Atlantic Ocean."

I don't see any reason to behave differently here. Especially, when the subject is disputed.

Is Rockall in the British Isles? That's another can of worms. And, in any case, the second sentence leaves the reader in no doubt as to where it is, as does the map. --Tóraí (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Two alternatives to the {{disputed-inline}} template are the {{POV statement}} and {{Lopsided}} templates, which may be more gentle ways of saying the same thing. --Tóraí (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with the image. Like I said, I think we need to be careful because there is potential for people to think that because Rockall is in the UK EEZ that that makes it British. But that can be explained in the article. --Tóraí (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Especially, when the subject is disputed. It isn't. nagualdesign 16:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's agree at least that the UK's claim is not universally recognised. And that articles on places like St Kilda don't include the term. --Tóraí (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That the UK's claim is not universally recognized is explained within the article. And since St Kilda has never been contested (AFAIK) it's hardly surprising that it isn't mentioned in the lead of that article. To be perfectly honest, Tóraí, it sounds like you're trying to push your own POV here rather than enforcing WP:NPOV. If you were to write to your government and ask them about who owns Rockall they'd probably care less than you do, and even less so about what Wikipedia has to say. The only topic that's currently up for discussion (between governments) is post-Brexit fishing rights. nagualdesign 19:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. So the reason for its addition here (and not at St Kilda) is because it is something that is contested? That's exactly the POV issue I'm referring to.

Now, since it was added last year, a full one third of edits to this article have been edit warring over it (i.e. remove, revert, repeat). It clearly doesn't have consensus. It doesn't properly reflect an NPOV. And it's not even necessary (no matter your POV). So just leave just leave it off. As you say, the issue of ownership is explained within the article. --Tóraí (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason for its addition here is because it has been historically contested. It is not currently contested, despite what you might read in sensational newspaper articles. And if people come here wanting to know who owns Rockall (which they might, given the type of coverage it receives) the answer is in the first sentence, which is properly referenced. You can't point to the actions of IP edit warriors as if that has any sort of meaning. By that rationale the Takbir means "Allah is greatest" (not "God"), and everyone who utters it is a terrorist. Some pages get a lot of visits by the righteously indignant is all. Broadly speaking, they don't really know what they're talking about. WP:NPOV means stating the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Rockall is British, that is a fact, and verifiably so. nagualdesign 21:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not currently contested, despite what you might read in sensational newspaper articles. And when the Irish government state that they do not recognise the UK claim, what do you think that means?

TBF I can only see us going back to adding the disputed tag to the article. Given that this change has been such a source of contention since being added last May, it might be good to alert people to this discussion instead of having so many people edit war over it. --Tóraí (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says, but there's a difference between not recognizing something and contesting it. Please do not add the disputed tag back in. As I've already said, people will think it means something else. Most of the edit warring has actually been drive-by edits by anonymous IPs who don't return. Those people are unlikely to read a misleading tag and engage in discussion here. If a single editor in good standing agrees with you then I'll agree to put the tag in, but at the moment there's just you. nagualdesign 22:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with nagualdesign's comments above. The UK's sovereignty of Rockall has been established since 1955 and no other government has claimed the rock. There have been drive-by edits by Irish nationalists IP's without comment and no further action. This latest round of changes is in the same area, except it was slightly more sophisticated. No, the article stays as the latest correction by nagualdesign, Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

EEZ and "the rock itself"

Happy to be corrected here, but where in the source is the support for this statement?

The act defines the UK's EEZ, which grants particular rights, but as the explanatory note to the act says, "these rights relate principally to the water column" (i.e. beneath the surface of the sea). Needless to say, "the rock itself" is above the surface of the sea. --Tóraí (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Needless to say, you say? You do realize that the rock isn't floating on the surface of the sea, right? It extends all the way down to the sea bed.

Anyway, as to the bit you've quoted, yes, the rights do relate principally to the water column and the many square miles of open sea that surround the small islet. The document details various amendments to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and other legislation regarding marine management.

As the rock lies within the United Kingdom's EEZ, the UK has exclusive rights and obligations in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of the rock itself is perhaps a little badly worded. It might be better to write something like As the rock lies within the United Kingdom's EEZ, the UK has exclusive rights and obligations regarding the exploitation, conservation and management in relation to the rock itself, but since I haven't poured over the reams of information linked to that document I'm not entirely certain. It does talk about gas storage and other things that I would assume to mean above the water. Why don't you spend some time looking through the documentation for a more specific link or quote? It's a fairly safe bet that there are legal obligations in relation to Rockall itself. nagualdesign 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't poured over the reams of information linked to that document I'm not entirely certain

You added the reference. It's your responsibility to make sure it supports the claim you say it does. Wikipedia:Verifiability is core policy. If you can't verify the statement using a source you add to the encyclopedia, you can hardly expect anybody else to.

As you can't do that, I'm removing the statement. If you do find a source to support the claim, please re-add it. --Tóraí (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Will you please stop being so combative. No, I did not add the reference. I restored it after you'd removed it, and by the sounds of it you didn't bother to read the reference. I'm busy doing other things at the moment, editing in other areas of Wikipedia. If you want to focus your efforts on this article then please do, but don't come here with an attitude making silly edits or they'll be reverted. Now please stop wasting my time. nagualdesign 22:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. And please do not add references to the encyclpedia unless you can show how they support the claim you say they do.

I've flagged the statement as not in the citation for now. If you believe the statement can be supported by a reliable source please update the reference. --Tóraí (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I did assume good faith to begin with, but your continued POV pushing has made it quite clear that you've got a chip on your shoulder, so you can stop quoting the rulebook. As I've already said, I didn't add the reference. Somebody else did that. Although it probably goes without saying that sovereignty of an islet comes with both rights and responsibilities. Then you came along and decided that you didn't like that bit, so you got rid of it. The fact that the only bit you quoted was the summary speaks for itself. There are literally pages of stuff attached to that reference concerning marine management and other issues. If you were here to improve the article you'd read through it and find what YOU are looking for, but the fact of the matter is that you're not looking. You have no wish to find the information. You just want rid of it for whatever reason, and you think that it's up to other editors to rally round doing all the legwork.

Here are a few suggestions; First, you could reword that sentence as mentioned above. The problem with that is it's just an educated guess on my part. Alternatively you can place a {{citation needed}} tag and walk away, leaving someone else to do all the hard work. You could look for a reference yourself, but you're not going to do that because you don't want that sentence there. Or you could, as I've already suggested, read the fucking reference.

Pardon my language here but you're getting on my nerves. If you're not here to help build an encyclopaedia then no amount of dressing your actions up with links to various policies is going to disguise your tendentious editing. Get a grip, realize what it is you're arguing over (an article about an uncontested rock miles out to sea) and drop the attitude. nagualdesign 22:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

nagualdesign, my advice: Take a breath, put the kettle on, and have a cuppa. There's nothing suspicious about challenging a statement in an article and asking where a reference supports a claim.

All that's happened here was that I removed a claim with the comment "not in the source". You re-added it with the comment: "Replaced properly referenced sentence..." When I asked where in the source it is referenced, you said you don't know, but still proceeded to re-add it anyway. And attack me for "tendentious editing". Then launch the screed above.

Now please: A cup of tea, no personal attacks, and do continue to assume good faith. --Tóraí (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The source refers to Part V of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Part has articles which discusses the rights and obligations of the state with the EEZ. Perhaps the better reference would be to the Convention not an act which briefly mentions it. I have added the reference. Dabbler (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabbler. I assumed the same and read through Part V last night before posting here. I did so again just now.

I can't see anything to support the claim. Maybe it's staring me straight in the face. Apologies if that is the case. But can you quote the section that supports the claim and we can add it to the reference? Or we can align the sentence more closely to the source.

I know you know this but possible for the sake of others: As UNCLOS is a primary source in this instance, policy is: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." --Tóraí (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The phrase referenced is "UK has exclusive rights and obligations in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of the rock itself."

Article 56 paragraphs 1 (a), (b) and (c) list rights and some duties

The fact is that the article gives various rights and duties to the state which has the EEZ. The only question is whether Rockall is an island or not. As it has no exclusive EEZ of itself, Rockall must be considered part of the existing EEZ seabed and therefore subject to the Article. Otherwise you would have the unsustainable position that the uninhabited reef or rock would not be part of the EEZ by which it is surrounded. Dabbler (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, look, let's not try to square these circles. How about the following, which is closer to the ref:

"As the rock lies within the United Kingdom's EEZ, the UK has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources of the area, including jurisdiction over the protection and preservation of the marine environment."

--Tóraí (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I am OK with that. I felt I was sailing a bit close OR with my last reply! Dabbler (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Added it just now. Cheers! --Tóraí (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Verdy p

The agreement between UK and Ireland means that they both don't agree to extend their EEZ above the 200nm limit from the agreed limits of the shores if inhabited areas (not from all sovereign lands: UK has affectively agreed with Ireland to exclude Rockall for the purpose of determination of the EEZ).

What this means is that this agreements puts a northern limit to the Irish EEZ claim, so that Rockall is effectively not in the EEZ of UK, but still it does not validate the unilateral extension of the British EEZ to Rockall (which is largely above the 200 nm limit, at 270 nm from the inhabited shores of Scotland).

There's no British EEZ surrounding the Britsish Rockall islet and territorial waters (which remain undisputed): above 12nm from Rockall (territorial waters) there's simply no EEZ, this may only be part of the continental shelf (but te Law of the Sea makes this extension also unlikely: the continental shelf can only extend up to 200 nm, or the real continental shelf (with water depths below 2500 meters), which ever is greater, but not exceeding 250 nm.

So two conditions are not met to extend the British continental shelf contiguously from Scotland: (1) the water depth around Rockall which is isolated in a deep trench annd that has a very small "continental shelf" alsready completely within the 12 nm territorial waters; (2) Rockall is too far from the inhabited islands in Scotland (270 nm is above the 250 nm limit).

In other words there's no extension at all of the British EEZ, and no extension of the British continental shelf, and Rockall is isolated within its own British territorial waters without any other extension: the British territorial waters around Rockall are completely surrounded by international waters.

Read the Law of the Sea correctly. The British claim for the EEZ covering Rockall is completely invalid, the British EEZ only covers its 12nm territorial waters around Rockall (in an area separated from the rest of the British EEZ).

Iceland, Ireland, and Denmark still contest this unilateral British EEZ extension (even after the bilateral agreement between UK and Ireland only to put an end to the conflict on EEZ claims, where both Ireland and UK have renounced to claim an EEZ there!) because this also conflicts with their own claims on the continental shelf (notably resources on the seabed, such as exploiting oil and rare earths), and other countries contest it because it is taken on international waters (this unilateral UK claim impacts the international right for navigation and fishing, the British navy is acting illegally if it comes to control the area above the 12nm limit that is the only legal British claim).

The British law (internationally illegal) has not even brought to the Sea commission, it is not instrumental and UK knows that it would be rejected there as invalid (Denmark, Iceland, and Ireland, as well as other countries with a maritime fleet there such as Norway, Sweden, Japan, Russia, the USA, France, could all bring that case to an international court and UK would loose).

And we are also not in the case of the "contiguous sea" created for insular countries, granting them more rights to extend their EEZ to link their inhabited islands, because Rockall is not inhabited and no link is necessary for people there with the rest of UK.

There's simply no instrument from UK deposited in the international bureaux (created by the internaltional Law of the Sea convention) managing the seabed (related to the continental shelf extension) or the EEZ. The British law is only enforcable in UK, but invalid internationally.

For establising such extension of the EEZ, UK would have to proove that Rockall allows sustainable life of humans, and this has never been the case for now. But even UK would fail to extend the contitnental shelf, due to the maximum depth allowed in the international convention ratified by UK: Rockall is very unusal because it is an isolated pike erected from a deep seabed, it has no continental shelf sourrounging it, or just a very tiny one completely embedded in its territorial waters which are completely within a very deep oceanic trench).

If a continental shelf extension was created around Rockall, Rockall would first need to be inhabited sustainably, and in that case it would not go outside the "Rockall Plateau", where one part of it to the south is already in the legal Irish EEZ that UK has accepted (UK has agreed with Ireland to not claim that part if such continental shelf extension was ever created, but for now the conditions are not met by UK for creating one) !

But may be in some future UK will build an inhabited sealight on Rockall or a permanent radar station to the top. It would cost a lot to UK to build it there and to support the personels, but UK may want to pay that price if there are benefits to do that (e.g. to be able to grant exploitation rights on the sea bed of the Plateau for rare earths, or oil extraction, and then collect authorization licence fees and taxes, or to grant fishing rights, or to create a military exclusion area against the Russian/US/Chinese navy, submarines, or airplanes, or to create a maritime protection area). verdy_p (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The agreement between UK and Ireland means that they both don't agree... I stopped reading at that point. A WP:WALLOFTEXT is one thing, a badly written one is quite another. I also noticed that you changed the article to read as though the UK withdrew its claim to an extension of its EEZ in 1990 based on an agreement signed in 1997. Seven years after the fact. Do you see a problem here? nagualdesign 12:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the important point, you don't want to read correctly the sources and notably the text of law in ireland and UK, and the fact that they jsut agree on the Irish EEZ. The Sea of Law is clear, that UK is wrong in iots law if it interprets again this as an agreement to extend the EEZ beyond the international standard which fixes limits that UK would want to ignore, even if UK has ratified it! There's definitely NO british EEZ around the British territorial waters of Rockall. verdy_p (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read the article, I just haven't read your wall of text above. Thank you for condensing it in your latest post. The thing is, this is just a Wikipedia article about Rockall and its current legal status. What you seem to be arguing is that the British government are in error, and you've come to Wikipedia to begin WP:Righting Great Wrongs. We get a lot of that around here. The thing is, even if we wrote that Rockall in made of Camembert and forms part of Normandy it would change nothing, but we'd have an incorrect article. Your latest edit, with the summary "This is completely sourced, you just read the sources incorrectly" includes no sources, so I am going to remove it. Again. nagualdesign 15:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to give additional sources, they are already in the artiucle itself which contradicts these sources (about the Law of the Sea, not those sources found in British law that contradict the Law of the Sea and the 1007 agreement). If you do not distinguish where the problem is, sorry but you must learn to read and understand who claims what, and who rules what and what UK has really ratified in 1997. The British law is self-contradicting ! verdy_p (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You seem not have read the article or the sources it is based on. The lead of the article is meant to summarise the article. Your additions to the lead contradict both the rest of the lead and the article which is properly sourced, so I have removed then again. I don’t see any sources in your wall of text either, and it is too badly written to follow as an argument.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

False gratuitous statement! I have perfectly read it and that's whay I corrected the article. You have not read these sources (or not correctly). The Law of the Sea is extremely clear. I gave all the reasons above, they are poiting key elements that are explicit in the sources of the article itself. verdy_p (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument "Too badly written" above is definitely not a valid reason (beside the fact that English is a secondary language, excuse me if there are some typos or the style does not match the expert British academic style; if you don't support it, then you have a severe problem of intolerance against peopel because of their language which does not match exactly yours, the same kind of intolerance as against cultures, handicaped peoples, ethnic differences, and which has a well known name, think about it !). If you can't support this style and use it to revert the exposed facts, then this is wrong: style about how people speak does not matter here, if you do not want to understand the meaning. Style can still be corrected, but it's not the way we discuss on Wikimedia, we need to be tolerant about it and only oppose facts. Otherwise you create an elite small groups of users which are allowed to discuss with you and this is against the Wikimedia community policies.

The arguments are exposed you just once again don't want to understand or read anything, you just read what you like and interpret it as you like. If that EEZ was existing it would be really registed at the international agency managing it gor the UN, with ratification instruments are regular procedures, as UK has never done that (another proof that it is just unilateral and in fact not agreed at all internationally). verdy_p (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

if you don't support it, then you have a severe problem of intolerance against peopel because of their language which does not match exactly yours, the same kind of intolerance as against cultures, handicaped peoples, ethnic differences, and which has a well known name, think about it ! Remember to WP:Assume good faith on the part of other editors. Implying that because somebody disagrees with you they must be racist or minority-phobic is a breach of WP:CIVIL and I'd ask you to strike that comment. If you want to discuss things sensibly then present some evidence. Don't just allude to what sources say, quote them. Otherwise you're going to get nowhere. nagualdesign 17:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't strike that, because you've shown twice your intolerance about it, I am complaining against your own attitude, you've not removed your statement when you opposed style and did not want to read further, this was really offensive for me, seen as a personal attack because I don't have the same culture or language as you, and I signal it. I was opposing arguemnts, you don't reply with arguments and oppose only form with a personal judgement... You have not even respected my good faith, you just used it as a bad excuse to explain your opposition (not at all against the arguments exposed, but only against my way of saying them in real good faith), and you've used gratuitous false statements by pretending I had not read the sources. verdy_p (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The comment I asked you to strike wasn't directed at me, it was written in reply to JohnBlackburne. There's no reason to accuse either of us of intolerance. The part of your wall of text that I quoted before ("The agreement between UK and Ireland means that they both don't agree") simply doesn't make sense. And please stop the edit warring! You've already surpassed WP:3RR. If you continue like this you will probably be blocked. nagualdesign 18:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again I've not been above the 3 reverts rules, I added a warning in the text (without changing it) that there was a contestation (on this talk page) and you were the one that used the 4th revert, not me !

So you made the edit war, you made gratuitous false statements agaisnst me or my competence, and opposed non-facts (on style) against facts, you were anticonstrctive by even hiding the debate. It's a proof that UK has not deposited any legal instrument to the international bureau managing the ZEE to make it really exiting (you can search for it, you'll find nothing after the 1997 ratification of the Law of the Sea!). It only exists in British law (published after 1997 without properly amending the international convention) which is self-contradicting when it vonluntarily breaches an international convention ratified and normally protect by the same law (with ratification instruments deposited). The sourced in the article are used in a very biased way, not read completley to see that they are self-contradicting and that the article cannot use them as a proven source. Thre's really a confict of laws (in UK) that cannot and should not be ignored silently by this article. The UK law is not usable as a valid source given these contradictions. verdy_p (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The above isn't factually correct. The UK deposited EEZ and continental shelf claims with the UN as required by UNCLOS in February 2014 http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/GBR.htm LM82 (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Replace "the longest continuous stay by an individual is currently 45 days" with "the longest continuous stay by an individual is a 2014 occupation of 45 days by Nick Hancock" as the former is vague and unhelpful. I'd be tempted to expand further and add more detail such as continuing the sentence: "beating the previous record of 40 days solo set Tom McClean in 1985 and the 42 day group occupation records, set by Greenpeace activists in 1997."

I hope someone will make this addition to the article, as it highlights and gives due weight to difficult achievement by adventurous people instead of all the politics the rest of the article is largely about. -- 109.76.255.192 (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the section titled "Visits to Rockall" in the article. It lists most of those who have landed and stayed on the rock. Dabbler (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The repetition is odd but fine I suppose. The use of the word "currently" is poor writing (in general but more so for an encyclopedia) and violates the recommendations of WP:RELTIME.

Since there is another section that goes into detail then I suggest a more minimal change of "is currently 45 days" to [is/was] "a 45 day occupation in 2014". -- 109.76.186.141 (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Again please remove the use of the word "currently" it is poor writing and the reason to avoid it are explained further at WP:RELTIME. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording. Dabbler (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Derry - Londonderry

Regarding today's edit war, please see [1] Roger 8 Roger (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disputed

Island is disputed between Ireland and the UK article should say this in opening paragraph Cian47 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggest you fully read the article. Eire has never claimed the islet. David J Johnson (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find that the MOS for Ireland requires you to spell Ireland ‘as Gaelige’ (in Irish) as Éire. Eire in Irish means ‘burden’.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

After "claimed by the United Kingdom as its territory" add ", a claim that is disputed by Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands)." The current version of the text misses out Iceland and Denmark and IMHO focuses too much on the Anglo-Irish conflict, as there are talks between all 4 parties. Source: International Maritime Boundaries, Report Number 9-23 193.109.238.130 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Can you link this report please? Or at least quote some of it, including page numbers, so others may verify it? NiciVampireHeart 15:04, 16 June 2019‎

Semiprotected edit request 30 June 2019

The ref name "EEZ" is used twice in the article for two different refs. Please change the second one (at the top of the References section) to something else, e.g. "EEZ2". 2001:BB6:4713:4858:3C17:7B73:B26:E457 (talk) 08:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 15:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2019

In section "Visits to Rockall" remove "(the Irish born)" from the line about Tom McClean. The detail is of dubious relevance to begin with but is also not supported by the citation or by anything on McClean's own wiki page. So far as I can gather McClean is from Scotland, not Ireland. 199.247.45.138 (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Can't find anything to substantiate that claim. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Introduction could do with condensing down on politics and better summarising the rest of the article

There's three paragraphs on the issue of the UK's territorial claim, which is of relevance only because of fishing/resource rights in the adjacent waters/seabed. The feature itself isn't of economic or cultural importance. I think one paragraph summarising this would be more appropriate. Maybe move some of it under Rockall#Ownership to create a summary at the top of that section?

Then instead we could add summary of the other aspects covered in the article to the introduction, e.g. geography and geology of Rockall and surrounding features that it relates to.

Rob984 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. As it stands, it reads very 'the lady doth protest too much, methinks', very Adrian Mole stuff, 'sucks yarboo we saw it first' nonsense, all made irrelevant by the UNCLOS. WP:BEBOLD and prune. --Red King (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Brass Plaque

Placed in 1955, no sign of it in 1971. But in 1997, some nut removed and replaced it back to front. Had it been found after all, then? More info needed. 2A00:23C5:E08D:8A00:71D6:C215:C4B8:EF06 (talk) 10:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)