![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi Varnebank. An islet is an island by reliable definitions of the term. If you don't believe me, please look up the term, or I can provide you with references. Regards, Rob ( talk | contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Going by Google define, an islet is not just an island but a small island. Is this a relatively small island? Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that using the word 'island' gives a sense of 'inhabitability' to what is basically not a habitable place. This has implications regarding claims. It is not insignificant that the claim by the UK Government refers to 'the island of Rockall'. Which I don't think it is. I agree with Torai to the extent that there are NPOV elements to be watched out for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting how St Peter and St Paul Rocks are now called an 'archipelago', Brazil has no rivals to its claim but someone seems to have felt 'rocks' didn't sound so good. The Brazilians maintain an apparently permanent research station there, which apart from any scientific value also could be said to make them seem 'habitable'. But they are still rocks. Also interesting is Okinotorishima, where the Japanese have constructed platforms on an almost submerged atoll. http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/10/okinotorishimaisland/ Varnebank ( talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Can it get any clearer that that?"The United Kingdom claims sovereignty over Rockall ... Ireland has not recognised British sovereignty over Rockall..."
"The consistent position of successive Irish Governments has been that Rockall and similar rocks and skerries have no significance for establishing legal claims to mineral rights in the adjacent seabed and to fishing rights in the surrounding seas."
"[Rockall's] sole legal importance now for the UK which, as seen, has reiterated its title to it is that it remains in a technical sense an 'island' and therefore continues to generate a territorial sea. ...
...Ireland still disputes British ownership of the Rock and the status of its immediately surrounding 12-mile enclave it..."
Well yeah. Rockall has nothing to do with EEZ. The UK is not claiming Rockall has any EEZ, and therefore the statement 'The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.' is incorrect. I also simply don't think the wording used in the edit you made is adequate. The UK does own Rockall, what's debated is whether it's integrated UK territory, or only part of the UK's EEZ. The dispute surrounding Rockall is whether it gives the UK a claim to the Rockall area of continental shelf, as it would be the only state to have territory on the plateau; however I don't believe the UK is perusing a claim based upon this. This is also presumably why the Irish state does not recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory. Stating that the UK claim 'is not recognised by Ireland' is too vague. The Irish state partially recognises UK sovereignty of the island, as it recognises the UK's EEZ. Possibly stating that Ireland doesn't recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory or similar would be more specific? Rob ( talk | contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.
I've added back the UK Government's statement:
"The islet of Rockall is part of the UK: specifically it forms part of Scotland under the Island of Rockall Act 1972. No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." [1]
This is just the British position Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom continues to claim jurisdiction over Rockall, but this claim is not accepted by Ireland. Each country remains aware of the continuing position of the other."
Brookie,
Could you explain how your edit here reflect policy on a neutral point of view: "Clained for the uk - rem guff about Ireland - so what if it doesn't recognise the British ownership"
Rockall was claimed by the UK in 1955. Ireland doesn't recognise that. Now, that may upset you. Or you may think it is "guff". But it's not our place to judge. In reality, it's no big deal.
The first paragraph of the article says who claims ownership of the feature. But a neighbouring state doesn't recognize that claim. RS dealing the question of ownership of Rockall make a point that they do not. It's a significant matter affecting the neutrality of any statement we make regarding who owns the rock. And we must present matters neutrally.
We cannot present just one POV as fact. We must present both. And do so neutrally. -- Tóraí ( talk) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Brookie:
Regarding, this edit, that is exactly what the source says (save for an exchange of the word "ownership" for "title").
What I wrote was: "The UK's claim to territorial waters around Rockall is disputed by Ireland on the basis of uncertain ownership of the rock."
What the source says is: "Ireland explicitly rules out the rock from even generating a 12-mile territorial sea for the UK on the basis of the uncertain title to the rock."
Could you self revert. I think we're doing a lot of reverting of each other today and I'd prefer we were decent and reverted ourselves when we err. -- Tóraí ( talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As the Symmons article points out, since 1997, Rockall isn't of significance to the dispute between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK to do with seabed rights around it. As a consequence, reading through the article, I think most of what is in the "History and conflicting claims to underwater rights" section actually belongs in a separate article.
That new article would deal with the claims to do with various continental shelves and submissions under UNCLOS. This article could focus on Rockall itself. A summary of the seabed dispute could remain, but the bulk would be spun out.
What do others think?
I'm not sure what we would call this new? Just a descriptive title like: Rockall area seabed dispute?
-- Tóraí ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I see some recent discussion on the ownership issue. I find some of the arguments here difficult to follow. The end of the lead "No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." while this is in the reference - is incorrect and misleading, and should be dropped or amended - it can be explored later on. The real dispute between nations is between the UK and Ireland on one side and Iceland and Denmark on the other side. There is no real dispute between Ireland and the UK. The UK submission to the UN Law of the Sea acknowledges assistance from Ireland in preparing the UK case. There are differences between the UK and Ireland on issues such as ownership of the rock, but this issue is not important and does not deserve the prominence it gets here. The important dispute is over the limits of the continental shelf. Iceland and Denmark claim that any claims by the UK or Ireland must terminate where the seabed drops down at the Rockall Basin. There are precedents elsewhere which support that opinion. If so then neither the UK nor Ireland have any rights on the Rockall Bank. The coverage of the dispute misses the point. ClemMacGána ( talk) 10:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this statement is that it is not true. The rock, from a geological perspective, is on the Faroe-Rockall Plateau. Denmark has stressed this point in their EEZ claim.
The article says: "Establishing that the rock is geologically part of the United Kingdom ... ...reinforced the UK Government's position with regard to seabed rights in the area." The reality is that it is geologically part of the Faroes, an argument used to reinforce Denmark's claim! Can we try to fix the article ? ClemMacGána ( talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the political wranglings that are described above, it's nonsensical to say that something is geologically part of a nation! Nations (like the United Kingdom) are political entities, they're not physical. Of course, Rockall may (or not) be geologically part of the British Isles. Generally speaking, if you don't know the difference between the UK and the British Isles then you shouldn't be making contentious edits. My 2 penneth. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There are many sources for Ireland's position on the rock, but most of what is stated is nonsense. I've removed much, if not all of it. Most statements were based on information in the sources, while evidently drawing unsupported conclusions. I suspect it's intentional, consider the state of the article last year. Please keep to sources. EEZ has had nothing to do with Rockall since 1997. Rob ( talk | contribs) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and thus irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones
Tóraí, this is not stated in the sources, neither does it make much sense. The fact that they do not believe it has 'rights' (as the source states) to territorial waters, does not effect whether it would have EEZ. It wouldn't have EEZ either way. It's a rock. Rob ( talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and
thusirrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones."
Actually, no it's not: see the Inverness-shire article. As can be seen, Inverness-shire, which actually no longer exists as a political entity, contains islands including the Uists which are closer to Rockall than Donegal is. Also, if I've read the rest of the article correctly, the UK officially incorporated Rockall in what was then Inverness-shire.
What the member of the Dáil said was: "The significant fact is that the island is 300 miles west of Scotland and 250 miles north-west of the coast of Donegal." It's not clear what part of Scotland he was using as a reference, but presumably it was somewhere on the mainland such as Ardnamurchan Point.
← ZScarpia 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (300 miles from Rockall lands at a spot in between Coll and Ardnamurchan Point ... parts of Skye, all but the northernmost parts of the Outer Hebrides, Rum, Coll, Tiree and the St. Kilda Group are significantly closer. In fact, the closest point of Northern Ireland to Rockall is 300 miles.)
As a point of comparison, using marine chartplotter software I get the following rough rhumbline distances of Rockall from other places (nautical miles and statute miles):
← ZScarpia 08:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Repeating something I said above, Great Britain is an ambiguous term: readers would be in doubt whether you were using it in the strictest sense (i.e. only the main island), or a broader one (i.e. including offshore islands). Also, readers would be left to wonder which part of the coast is being measured from (some readers will assume you're measuring due eastwards). Also, sometimes Skye, which is closer to Rockall than the distance given is sometimes treated as part of the mainland since the separation is small and it is now connected to the mainland by a bridge. Personally, I would never use an expression such as west of Scotland, east of England let alone west of Great Britain, I'd use a more precise point as a base. ← ZScarpia 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
'All those people who don't understand where the Outer Hebrides are will be lost by the next sentence which mentions North Uist and those same Hebrides then won't they'. So what? The point is that the lead adequately states roughly the location of Rockall, which the majority of readers will comprehend. The location of the nearest permanently inhabited island is a unrelated, and far less important fact. Rob ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Altered Rockall's previously stated location of 57°35’46.6”N 13°41’14.3”W to 57°35’46.695”N 13°41’14.308”W, and its height. Reasons: 1. Rockall Club website's Facts page, "57 35.7781N, 13 41.2371W". 2. BBC website, News article: "Rockall: Smaller, but in the same place", dated 8 October 2014: "The difference between the new data and the previous collections is only about 1.3m in an east/west direction and 0.3m in a north/south direction." 3. The Stornoway Gazette's article about this subject.
Nick Hancock sent the following to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office: "The UKHO coordinate in DMS is N 57 35 46.686, W 13 41 14.226" or 57°35.7781’N 13°41.2371’W. "Your new coordinate (to same precision) is N 57 35 46.695, W 13 41 14.308. Simply differencing the UKHO coordinates and the new coordinates gives a difference of only about 1.3m in east/west direction and 0.3m in north/south. Given the small amount of noise in the comparison of the two different datums (about a metre or so) and also the likely accuracy of the UKHO point then it is clear that both surveys arrived at pretty much the same answer and, unfortunately, you can't claim to have moved Rockall. So, in summary, I didn't 'move' Rockall, but the GNSS measurements I took from the summit did determine the height above mean sea level as 17.15m!"
The UKHO latitude-longitude (1977) is in WGS84, it was transformed from the original WGS72; in contrast Nick Hancocks latitude-longitude will be in ETRS89 ("two different datums"). On 1 January 1989 both were at the same location. In 2014 the difference in the UK is approximately 0.56 metres.
Just to point out that a Vincenty geodesic distance calculator is more accurate than the Google Earth measuring tool, though the difference at these distances is only a few metres.
Sulasgeir ( talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do think we should include a reference to the sea bed dispute (the EEZ only applies to the water) and went to Rockall Basin for some text I could summarise, even just a see also. Unfortunately, we have not a word there about any sea-bed dispute. Would someone with info please update that article? -- Red King ( talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | Rights to exploit these resources are disputed between the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faroes). This topic is addressed in Rockall Bank dispute. | ” |
“ | But as Rockall lies within 200 nmi (370 km) of both St. Kilda and North Uist, it remains within the EEZ of the United Kingdom and, as such, under international law the UK can claim "the sovereignty of the coastal state in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of natural and living resources fishery and mineral resources" of the rock itself and an area of territorial waters extending for 12 nmi (22 km) around it. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and Ireland have signed an EEZ boundary agreement that includes Rockall in the United Kingdom area. | ” |
"The United Kingdom claimed Rockall in 1955 and had previously claimed an extended exclusive economic zone based on it. This claim to an extended zone was dropped upon ratifying UNCLOS in 1997, since rocks or islets such as Rockall, that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life[clarification needed], are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone under the Convention.[1]"
This is according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III 1994 Part VIII "Regime of Islands" Article 121 Section 3: "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Question I have is, what if they kept a permanent population there? Could they elevate the Rock to status of Island and claim a 200nmi EEZ? 98.127.119.21 ( talk) 03:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I put up {{ contradiction}}. Parts of the article say Rockall is made of granite rock (a plutonic rock), while other parts say it is a volcanic plug (which are made of volcanic rock). Correction or clarification is needed, as these seem to contradict one another. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rockall. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The ferocity with which Rockall is battered by the sea means it cannot lost for long, geologically speaking. I would guesstimate a million years or so before it is gone below the waves. Does anyone have a proper calculation? Fig ( talk) 10:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The map shown in the infobox could be better. The red dot showing the location of Rockall is almost off the edge of the map, and the distance to Iceland is barely discernible. Could we not centre the map on the dot? Or better yet replace the map with File:UK shipping forecast zones.png instead? nagual design 03:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Ròcal is the Gaelic form of the name, not the Norse form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.167.46 ( talk) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some serious misunderstandings and errors of fact in the article. I should have intervened earlier. My excuses are that these differences had little or no practical effect. I would rather not give support to drive-by (usually ip), editors. There is excellent cooperation between the UK and Irish negotiators in the ‘real world’, I didn’t want conflict or even the impression of conflict here. Henry Kissinger described the UNCLOS talks as “one of the most significant negotiations in diplomatic history”.
By ‘no practical effect’ I mean: Rockall is in the UK EEZ, therefore the UK thinks it ‘owns’ it. Does this actually matter? The UK considers Rockall an islet – a small island, territory, therefore they claim fishing rights. Even though this overlaps with Danish and Irish claims, it does not matters, because the EU common fisheries policy is exercised by the EU on behalf of Denmark, Ireland and the UK.
So, why correct the article now? It is disappointing to see new editors being threatened with being banned from editing. There is a concern, which could invert my earlier ‘no practical effect’ It is Brexit.
I know that the usual approach on Wikipedia is to make the change ‘be bold’; however I want to avoid the appearance of an edit war, a term just used in a recent undo. I could have posted this in Rockall Bank dispute. I reckon that more editors will see it here.
The source of many of the errors is the difference of opinion over the concept of ownership. The source of many of the misunderstandings revolves around how Rockall is described. The UK considers it to be and island or an ‘islet’ – which just means ‘small island’. Whereas it is just a rock; it is not territory, not land.
As has been said Rockall is in the UK EEZ. This is agreed by Ireland and the UK and now by Denmark, but NOT by any other country. It is opposed by Iceland. It is not yet incorporated into the law of the sea. The bilateral agreements between the UK and Ireland and between the UK and Denmark are subject to agreement by UNCLOS. I consider that they will almost certainly agree. But if they didn’t, then those two bilateral agreements would also fall. (Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed).
This is a matter of definition. What is Rockall? It is not land, it is not territory, it is not an island or even an islet. It is a rock or a skerry. If Rockall was land or an island, (capable of sustaining human life) then its ‘ownership’ would be determined by distance. In this case Donegal is 430 km distant while Scotland is 460 km away. ‘Island hopping’ is not used. However it is not an island, it is a rock, with the same rights as St Helen’s reef, or any other feature on the seabed, so the ‘equidistance’ formulae is used, equidistance between Donegal and Uist. This places Rockall 38 nautical miles north of the equidistance line, in UK EEZ. Remember, it is not land, not territory. It cannot be said to “owned” by anyone. The map showing (UK) under Rockall is misleading, as it implies that it is UK territory.
The opening line, describing Rockall as an ‘islet’ is inaccurate. It is a rock.
The March 2014 agreed coordinates between Ireland and the UK is about EEZ. There is nothing about Rockall itself. There is no agreement that the UK owns Rockall. No one can be said to ‘own’ it. The UK claims to own Rockall and have declared a twelve mile territorial sea around it. No other party has recognised this. It is not a territory, so it can’t have a territorial sea. To emphasise the invalidity of this claim, the Irish Navy regularly enters this alleged territorial sea. They do inform the Royal Navy, on a basis of: ‘we are not seeking permission; we are informing you as a courtesy’.
The final entry in the lead: ‘No other state has disputed our claim to the islet’ is correct. It is in the UK EEZ. The final entry in ‘ownership – Ireland’ is inaccurate: ‘With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which resolved any disputes over the ownership of the islet’. The publication said nothing about ownership. The UK are of the opinion that they ‘own’ Rockall; that it is UK territory, entitled to a territorial sea, which they could, in the event of Brexit, extend from 12 miles to 200 miles. This concept of ownership remains disputed.
So, is there any reason why the article should not be corrected?
Regards Lugnad ( talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Houses of Oireachtas. Written Answers. - Ownership of Rockall. 23 May 1995. See References Notes 64: Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Spring: "Under the Law of the Sea Convention which resulted from the Conference, sovereignty over an uninhabitable rock such as Rockall does not give rise to a right either to a continental shelf or to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone although it does create a right to a 12 mile territorial sea around it. In the case of Rockall, as I have said, Ireland did not recognise the British claim to sovereignty, deriving from the temporary landing of an individual on the rock in 1955, which would be the basis for a claim to a 12 mile territorial sea."
The closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall is at about 56.70194 -13.67252 (56° 42’ 06.984” N 13° 40’ 21.072” W or 56° 42.1164 N 13° 40.3512 W), a distance of about 99.602681606854 km, or 61.890 miles, or 53.781 nautical miles; calculated in WGS84 ellipsoidal or geodesic distance using Charles Karney's Geodsolve, and his Geodesic path "Find intermediate points along a geodesic" to determine the latitude-longitude. See References Notes 5: electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB). S.I. No. 86/2014 - Maritime Jurisdiction (Boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zone) Order 2014. "3. The boundary of the exclusive economic zone of the State in the North-East Atlantic Ocean is formed by a series of geodesic lines connecting the following points defined by co-ordinates of latitude and longitude on the World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS 1984), in the sequence given below:" "Reference Latitude Longitude"
"109 56° 32.50 N 12° 12.00 W 110 56° 42.00 N 12° 12.00 W 111 56° 42.00 N 14° 00.00 W 112 56° 40.00000 N 14° 00.00000 W 113 56° 40.00000 N 14° 10.00000 W 114 56° 34.63126 N 14° 10.00000 W 115 56° 34.63126 N 14° 19.86168 W"
See References Notes 4: UK: The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013
"190 56° 42’.00N 014° 00’.00W Parallel of latitude 191 56° 42’.00N 012° 12’.00W Meridian of longitude" Sulasgeir ( talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If the Republic of Ireland's EEZ boundaries between 56° 42.00 N 12° 12.00 W and 56° 42.00 N 14° 00.00 W, were connected by a loxodrome (rhumb line) line, then the closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall, would be at about 56° 42’ 00.000” N 13° 41’ 14.308” W or 56° 42.00000 N 13° 41.23847 W, a WGS84 ellipsoidal (geodesic) distance of about of 99.815 km or 62.022 miles or 53.896 nautical miles. Sulasgeir ( talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Rockall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Minor Issue - The links for punk band "Gang of Four" and their album "Entertainment" direct the user to the "Gang of Four" (CHINESE POLITICAL PARTY) and "Entertainment" (GENERAL CONCEPT) instead of their actual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.6.216 ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rockall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rockall2011.comrockall2011.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the CIA factbook map with one of our own. The main problem is it is heavily distorted. The lines of longitude, all at an angle across the map, are the clearest indication. It looks like it is excerpted from a larger map, perhaps of Europe so it appears at the left edge of that map. It is hard to reconcile with the fact that the island is in the UK’s EEZ so is closer to the UK mainland than the ROI, due to this distortion. As we have good maps that don’t have this problem I have replaced it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Hi Varnebank. An islet is an island by reliable definitions of the term. If you don't believe me, please look up the term, or I can provide you with references. Regards, Rob ( talk | contribs) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Going by Google define, an islet is not just an island but a small island. Is this a relatively small island? Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that using the word 'island' gives a sense of 'inhabitability' to what is basically not a habitable place. This has implications regarding claims. It is not insignificant that the claim by the UK Government refers to 'the island of Rockall'. Which I don't think it is. I agree with Torai to the extent that there are NPOV elements to be watched out for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting how St Peter and St Paul Rocks are now called an 'archipelago', Brazil has no rivals to its claim but someone seems to have felt 'rocks' didn't sound so good. The Brazilians maintain an apparently permanent research station there, which apart from any scientific value also could be said to make them seem 'habitable'. But they are still rocks. Also interesting is Okinotorishima, where the Japanese have constructed platforms on an almost submerged atoll. http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/04/10/okinotorishimaisland/ Varnebank ( talk) 21:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Can it get any clearer that that?"The United Kingdom claims sovereignty over Rockall ... Ireland has not recognised British sovereignty over Rockall..."
"The consistent position of successive Irish Governments has been that Rockall and similar rocks and skerries have no significance for establishing legal claims to mineral rights in the adjacent seabed and to fishing rights in the surrounding seas."
"[Rockall's] sole legal importance now for the UK which, as seen, has reiterated its title to it is that it remains in a technical sense an 'island' and therefore continues to generate a territorial sea. ...
...Ireland still disputes British ownership of the Rock and the status of its immediately surrounding 12-mile enclave it..."
Well yeah. Rockall has nothing to do with EEZ. The UK is not claiming Rockall has any EEZ, and therefore the statement 'The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.' is incorrect. I also simply don't think the wording used in the edit you made is adequate. The UK does own Rockall, what's debated is whether it's integrated UK territory, or only part of the UK's EEZ. The dispute surrounding Rockall is whether it gives the UK a claim to the Rockall area of continental shelf, as it would be the only state to have territory on the plateau; however I don't believe the UK is perusing a claim based upon this. This is also presumably why the Irish state does not recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory. Stating that the UK claim 'is not recognised by Ireland' is too vague. The Irish state partially recognises UK sovereignty of the island, as it recognises the UK's EEZ. Possibly stating that Ireland doesn't recognise Rockall as integrated UK territory or similar would be more specific? Rob ( talk | contribs) 00:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The status of Rockall as being an island or a mere rock, unable to sustain human habitation and therefore excluded from the calculation of an exclusive economic zone, is the key point of a dispute involving the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland.
I've added back the UK Government's statement:
"The islet of Rockall is part of the UK: specifically it forms part of Scotland under the Island of Rockall Act 1972. No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." [1]
This is just the British position Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"The United Kingdom continues to claim jurisdiction over Rockall, but this claim is not accepted by Ireland. Each country remains aware of the continuing position of the other."
Brookie,
Could you explain how your edit here reflect policy on a neutral point of view: "Clained for the uk - rem guff about Ireland - so what if it doesn't recognise the British ownership"
Rockall was claimed by the UK in 1955. Ireland doesn't recognise that. Now, that may upset you. Or you may think it is "guff". But it's not our place to judge. In reality, it's no big deal.
The first paragraph of the article says who claims ownership of the feature. But a neighbouring state doesn't recognize that claim. RS dealing the question of ownership of Rockall make a point that they do not. It's a significant matter affecting the neutrality of any statement we make regarding who owns the rock. And we must present matters neutrally.
We cannot present just one POV as fact. We must present both. And do so neutrally. -- Tóraí ( talk) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Brookie:
Regarding, this edit, that is exactly what the source says (save for an exchange of the word "ownership" for "title").
What I wrote was: "The UK's claim to territorial waters around Rockall is disputed by Ireland on the basis of uncertain ownership of the rock."
What the source says is: "Ireland explicitly rules out the rock from even generating a 12-mile territorial sea for the UK on the basis of the uncertain title to the rock."
Could you self revert. I think we're doing a lot of reverting of each other today and I'd prefer we were decent and reverted ourselves when we err. -- Tóraí ( talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As the Symmons article points out, since 1997, Rockall isn't of significance to the dispute between Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and the UK to do with seabed rights around it. As a consequence, reading through the article, I think most of what is in the "History and conflicting claims to underwater rights" section actually belongs in a separate article.
That new article would deal with the claims to do with various continental shelves and submissions under UNCLOS. This article could focus on Rockall itself. A summary of the seabed dispute could remain, but the bulk would be spun out.
What do others think?
I'm not sure what we would call this new? Just a descriptive title like: Rockall area seabed dispute?
-- Tóraí ( talk) 19:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I see some recent discussion on the ownership issue. I find some of the arguments here difficult to follow. The end of the lead "No other state has disputed our claim to the islet." while this is in the reference - is incorrect and misleading, and should be dropped or amended - it can be explored later on. The real dispute between nations is between the UK and Ireland on one side and Iceland and Denmark on the other side. There is no real dispute between Ireland and the UK. The UK submission to the UN Law of the Sea acknowledges assistance from Ireland in preparing the UK case. There are differences between the UK and Ireland on issues such as ownership of the rock, but this issue is not important and does not deserve the prominence it gets here. The important dispute is over the limits of the continental shelf. Iceland and Denmark claim that any claims by the UK or Ireland must terminate where the seabed drops down at the Rockall Basin. There are precedents elsewhere which support that opinion. If so then neither the UK nor Ireland have any rights on the Rockall Bank. The coverage of the dispute misses the point. ClemMacGána ( talk) 10:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this statement is that it is not true. The rock, from a geological perspective, is on the Faroe-Rockall Plateau. Denmark has stressed this point in their EEZ claim.
The article says: "Establishing that the rock is geologically part of the United Kingdom ... ...reinforced the UK Government's position with regard to seabed rights in the area." The reality is that it is geologically part of the Faroes, an argument used to reinforce Denmark's claim! Can we try to fix the article ? ClemMacGána ( talk) 12:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the political wranglings that are described above, it's nonsensical to say that something is geologically part of a nation! Nations (like the United Kingdom) are political entities, they're not physical. Of course, Rockall may (or not) be geologically part of the British Isles. Generally speaking, if you don't know the difference between the UK and the British Isles then you shouldn't be making contentious edits. My 2 penneth. nagualdesign ( talk) 19:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There are many sources for Ireland's position on the rock, but most of what is stated is nonsense. I've removed much, if not all of it. Most statements were based on information in the sources, while evidently drawing unsupported conclusions. I suspect it's intentional, consider the state of the article last year. Please keep to sources. EEZ has had nothing to do with Rockall since 1997. Rob ( talk | contribs) 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and thus irrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones
Tóraí, this is not stated in the sources, neither does it make much sense. The fact that they do not believe it has 'rights' (as the source states) to territorial waters, does not effect whether it would have EEZ. It wouldn't have EEZ either way. It's a rock. Rob ( talk | contribs) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Ireland regards Rockall as an uninhabitable rock without any territorial waters and
thusirrelevant when determining the boundaries of the exclusive economic zones."
Actually, no it's not: see the Inverness-shire article. As can be seen, Inverness-shire, which actually no longer exists as a political entity, contains islands including the Uists which are closer to Rockall than Donegal is. Also, if I've read the rest of the article correctly, the UK officially incorporated Rockall in what was then Inverness-shire.
What the member of the Dáil said was: "The significant fact is that the island is 300 miles west of Scotland and 250 miles north-west of the coast of Donegal." It's not clear what part of Scotland he was using as a reference, but presumably it was somewhere on the mainland such as Ardnamurchan Point.
← ZScarpia 14:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC) (300 miles from Rockall lands at a spot in between Coll and Ardnamurchan Point ... parts of Skye, all but the northernmost parts of the Outer Hebrides, Rum, Coll, Tiree and the St. Kilda Group are significantly closer. In fact, the closest point of Northern Ireland to Rockall is 300 miles.)
As a point of comparison, using marine chartplotter software I get the following rough rhumbline distances of Rockall from other places (nautical miles and statute miles):
← ZScarpia 08:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Repeating something I said above, Great Britain is an ambiguous term: readers would be in doubt whether you were using it in the strictest sense (i.e. only the main island), or a broader one (i.e. including offshore islands). Also, readers would be left to wonder which part of the coast is being measured from (some readers will assume you're measuring due eastwards). Also, sometimes Skye, which is closer to Rockall than the distance given is sometimes treated as part of the mainland since the separation is small and it is now connected to the mainland by a bridge. Personally, I would never use an expression such as west of Scotland, east of England let alone west of Great Britain, I'd use a more precise point as a base. ← ZScarpia 22:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
'All those people who don't understand where the Outer Hebrides are will be lost by the next sentence which mentions North Uist and those same Hebrides then won't they'. So what? The point is that the lead adequately states roughly the location of Rockall, which the majority of readers will comprehend. The location of the nearest permanently inhabited island is a unrelated, and far less important fact. Rob ( talk | contribs) 14:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Altered Rockall's previously stated location of 57°35’46.6”N 13°41’14.3”W to 57°35’46.695”N 13°41’14.308”W, and its height. Reasons: 1. Rockall Club website's Facts page, "57 35.7781N, 13 41.2371W". 2. BBC website, News article: "Rockall: Smaller, but in the same place", dated 8 October 2014: "The difference between the new data and the previous collections is only about 1.3m in an east/west direction and 0.3m in a north/south direction." 3. The Stornoway Gazette's article about this subject.
Nick Hancock sent the following to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office: "The UKHO coordinate in DMS is N 57 35 46.686, W 13 41 14.226" or 57°35.7781’N 13°41.2371’W. "Your new coordinate (to same precision) is N 57 35 46.695, W 13 41 14.308. Simply differencing the UKHO coordinates and the new coordinates gives a difference of only about 1.3m in east/west direction and 0.3m in north/south. Given the small amount of noise in the comparison of the two different datums (about a metre or so) and also the likely accuracy of the UKHO point then it is clear that both surveys arrived at pretty much the same answer and, unfortunately, you can't claim to have moved Rockall. So, in summary, I didn't 'move' Rockall, but the GNSS measurements I took from the summit did determine the height above mean sea level as 17.15m!"
The UKHO latitude-longitude (1977) is in WGS84, it was transformed from the original WGS72; in contrast Nick Hancocks latitude-longitude will be in ETRS89 ("two different datums"). On 1 January 1989 both were at the same location. In 2014 the difference in the UK is approximately 0.56 metres.
Just to point out that a Vincenty geodesic distance calculator is more accurate than the Google Earth measuring tool, though the difference at these distances is only a few metres.
Sulasgeir ( talk) 04:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do think we should include a reference to the sea bed dispute (the EEZ only applies to the water) and went to Rockall Basin for some text I could summarise, even just a see also. Unfortunately, we have not a word there about any sea-bed dispute. Would someone with info please update that article? -- Red King ( talk) 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
“ | Rights to exploit these resources are disputed between the UK, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark (on behalf of the Faroes). This topic is addressed in Rockall Bank dispute. | ” |
“ | But as Rockall lies within 200 nmi (370 km) of both St. Kilda and North Uist, it remains within the EEZ of the United Kingdom and, as such, under international law the UK can claim "the sovereignty of the coastal state in relation to the exploitation, conservation and management of natural and living resources fishery and mineral resources" of the rock itself and an area of territorial waters extending for 12 nmi (22 km) around it. Furthermore, the United Kingdom and Ireland have signed an EEZ boundary agreement that includes Rockall in the United Kingdom area. | ” |
"The United Kingdom claimed Rockall in 1955 and had previously claimed an extended exclusive economic zone based on it. This claim to an extended zone was dropped upon ratifying UNCLOS in 1997, since rocks or islets such as Rockall, that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life[clarification needed], are not entitled to an exclusive economic zone under the Convention.[1]"
This is according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III 1994 Part VIII "Regime of Islands" Article 121 Section 3: "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
Question I have is, what if they kept a permanent population there? Could they elevate the Rock to status of Island and claim a 200nmi EEZ? 98.127.119.21 ( talk) 03:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I put up {{ contradiction}}. Parts of the article say Rockall is made of granite rock (a plutonic rock), while other parts say it is a volcanic plug (which are made of volcanic rock). Correction or clarification is needed, as these seem to contradict one another. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rockall. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The ferocity with which Rockall is battered by the sea means it cannot lost for long, geologically speaking. I would guesstimate a million years or so before it is gone below the waves. Does anyone have a proper calculation? Fig ( talk) 10:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The map shown in the infobox could be better. The red dot showing the location of Rockall is almost off the edge of the map, and the distance to Iceland is barely discernible. Could we not centre the map on the dot? Or better yet replace the map with File:UK shipping forecast zones.png instead? nagual design 03:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Ròcal is the Gaelic form of the name, not the Norse form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.167.46 ( talk) 11:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some serious misunderstandings and errors of fact in the article. I should have intervened earlier. My excuses are that these differences had little or no practical effect. I would rather not give support to drive-by (usually ip), editors. There is excellent cooperation between the UK and Irish negotiators in the ‘real world’, I didn’t want conflict or even the impression of conflict here. Henry Kissinger described the UNCLOS talks as “one of the most significant negotiations in diplomatic history”.
By ‘no practical effect’ I mean: Rockall is in the UK EEZ, therefore the UK thinks it ‘owns’ it. Does this actually matter? The UK considers Rockall an islet – a small island, territory, therefore they claim fishing rights. Even though this overlaps with Danish and Irish claims, it does not matters, because the EU common fisheries policy is exercised by the EU on behalf of Denmark, Ireland and the UK.
So, why correct the article now? It is disappointing to see new editors being threatened with being banned from editing. There is a concern, which could invert my earlier ‘no practical effect’ It is Brexit.
I know that the usual approach on Wikipedia is to make the change ‘be bold’; however I want to avoid the appearance of an edit war, a term just used in a recent undo. I could have posted this in Rockall Bank dispute. I reckon that more editors will see it here.
The source of many of the errors is the difference of opinion over the concept of ownership. The source of many of the misunderstandings revolves around how Rockall is described. The UK considers it to be and island or an ‘islet’ – which just means ‘small island’. Whereas it is just a rock; it is not territory, not land.
As has been said Rockall is in the UK EEZ. This is agreed by Ireland and the UK and now by Denmark, but NOT by any other country. It is opposed by Iceland. It is not yet incorporated into the law of the sea. The bilateral agreements between the UK and Ireland and between the UK and Denmark are subject to agreement by UNCLOS. I consider that they will almost certainly agree. But if they didn’t, then those two bilateral agreements would also fall. (Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed).
This is a matter of definition. What is Rockall? It is not land, it is not territory, it is not an island or even an islet. It is a rock or a skerry. If Rockall was land or an island, (capable of sustaining human life) then its ‘ownership’ would be determined by distance. In this case Donegal is 430 km distant while Scotland is 460 km away. ‘Island hopping’ is not used. However it is not an island, it is a rock, with the same rights as St Helen’s reef, or any other feature on the seabed, so the ‘equidistance’ formulae is used, equidistance between Donegal and Uist. This places Rockall 38 nautical miles north of the equidistance line, in UK EEZ. Remember, it is not land, not territory. It cannot be said to “owned” by anyone. The map showing (UK) under Rockall is misleading, as it implies that it is UK territory.
The opening line, describing Rockall as an ‘islet’ is inaccurate. It is a rock.
The March 2014 agreed coordinates between Ireland and the UK is about EEZ. There is nothing about Rockall itself. There is no agreement that the UK owns Rockall. No one can be said to ‘own’ it. The UK claims to own Rockall and have declared a twelve mile territorial sea around it. No other party has recognised this. It is not a territory, so it can’t have a territorial sea. To emphasise the invalidity of this claim, the Irish Navy regularly enters this alleged territorial sea. They do inform the Royal Navy, on a basis of: ‘we are not seeking permission; we are informing you as a courtesy’.
The final entry in the lead: ‘No other state has disputed our claim to the islet’ is correct. It is in the UK EEZ. The final entry in ‘ownership – Ireland’ is inaccurate: ‘With effect from 31 March 2014, the UK and Ireland published EEZ limits which resolved any disputes over the ownership of the islet’. The publication said nothing about ownership. The UK are of the opinion that they ‘own’ Rockall; that it is UK territory, entitled to a territorial sea, which they could, in the event of Brexit, extend from 12 miles to 200 miles. This concept of ownership remains disputed.
So, is there any reason why the article should not be corrected?
Regards Lugnad ( talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Houses of Oireachtas. Written Answers. - Ownership of Rockall. 23 May 1995. See References Notes 64: Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Spring: "Under the Law of the Sea Convention which resulted from the Conference, sovereignty over an uninhabitable rock such as Rockall does not give rise to a right either to a continental shelf or to a 200 mile exclusive economic zone although it does create a right to a 12 mile territorial sea around it. In the case of Rockall, as I have said, Ireland did not recognise the British claim to sovereignty, deriving from the temporary landing of an individual on the rock in 1955, which would be the basis for a claim to a 12 mile territorial sea."
The closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall is at about 56.70194 -13.67252 (56° 42’ 06.984” N 13° 40’ 21.072” W or 56° 42.1164 N 13° 40.3512 W), a distance of about 99.602681606854 km, or 61.890 miles, or 53.781 nautical miles; calculated in WGS84 ellipsoidal or geodesic distance using Charles Karney's Geodsolve, and his Geodesic path "Find intermediate points along a geodesic" to determine the latitude-longitude. See References Notes 5: electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB). S.I. No. 86/2014 - Maritime Jurisdiction (Boundaries of Exclusive Economic Zone) Order 2014. "3. The boundary of the exclusive economic zone of the State in the North-East Atlantic Ocean is formed by a series of geodesic lines connecting the following points defined by co-ordinates of latitude and longitude on the World Geodetic System 1984 datum (WGS 1984), in the sequence given below:" "Reference Latitude Longitude"
"109 56° 32.50 N 12° 12.00 W 110 56° 42.00 N 12° 12.00 W 111 56° 42.00 N 14° 00.00 W 112 56° 40.00000 N 14° 00.00000 W 113 56° 40.00000 N 14° 10.00000 W 114 56° 34.63126 N 14° 10.00000 W 115 56° 34.63126 N 14° 19.86168 W"
See References Notes 4: UK: The Exclusive Economic Zone Order 2013
"190 56° 42’.00N 014° 00’.00W Parallel of latitude 191 56° 42’.00N 012° 12’.00W Meridian of longitude" Sulasgeir ( talk) 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If the Republic of Ireland's EEZ boundaries between 56° 42.00 N 12° 12.00 W and 56° 42.00 N 14° 00.00 W, were connected by a loxodrome (rhumb line) line, then the closest point of the Republic of Ireland's EEZ to Rockall, would be at about 56° 42’ 00.000” N 13° 41’ 14.308” W or 56° 42.00000 N 13° 41.23847 W, a WGS84 ellipsoidal (geodesic) distance of about of 99.815 km or 62.022 miles or 53.896 nautical miles. Sulasgeir ( talk) 19:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Rockall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Minor Issue - The links for punk band "Gang of Four" and their album "Entertainment" direct the user to the "Gang of Four" (CHINESE POLITICAL PARTY) and "Entertainment" (GENERAL CONCEPT) instead of their actual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.6.216 ( talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rockall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rockall2011.comrockall2011.com/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the CIA factbook map with one of our own. The main problem is it is heavily distorted. The lines of longitude, all at an angle across the map, are the clearest indication. It looks like it is excerpted from a larger map, perhaps of Europe so it appears at the left edge of that map. It is hard to reconcile with the fact that the island is in the UK’s EEZ so is closer to the UK mainland than the ROI, due to this distortion. As we have good maps that don’t have this problem I have replaced it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)