Talk:Perejil Island

NPOV dispute

On 2 Sep 2003, user 193.136.200.43 edited (without comment) the page of Isla Perejil, and removed the text "It has been under Spanish control since 1668, but it is claimed by Morocco. It was occupied on July 11, 2002 by Moroccan police and troops, who were evicted without bloodshed by Spanish naval forces. On July 20, 2002, Spain agreed to withdraw its troops from the island.", replacing it by a large account reasoning that the Spanish have absolutely no claim to this island.

I think the (detailed) information is not from an Neutral point of view, although I am not in a position to check the complete factual accuracy (no sources are given).

One thing I have found that is not accurate: the added material claims that "Spain which has never occupied the Leila (=Perejil) islet".

On the Dutch site [1] I found the bit "Toen Marokko in 1956 onafhankelijk werd van Spanje behield Madrid de zeggenschap over de enclaves Ceuta en Melilla en enkele eilandjes voor de kust. Het lot van het Peterselie Eiland bleef ook toen onduidelijk. Spanje haalde uiteindelijk begin jaren zestig zijn laatste soldaten van het eiland, maar beschouwt dit kennelijk niet als een overdracht aan Marokko." - which tells that Spain did keep soldiers on this island until the 1960s.

And a piece from the African home site [2] "The small, one kilometer-wide, island of Perejil is located just about 200 meters from the Moroccan coast inside Moroccan territorial waters. It is said to have belonged to Spain since 1668 but Morocco disputes this on historical grounds, arguing that the island was liberated from the Spanish protectorate in 1956 and adding that it was not the first time that Morocco conducted such military exercises on the island, which is customarily used by Moroccan farmers for farming and cattle-breeding activities."

I think the information of 193.136.200.43 gives the arguments Morocco is using, but also the other side of the story should be added, and there should be something stating that the island is disputed, and the piece of the 2002 incidents should be added again.

Edits:

(cur) (last) . . M 13:55, 2 Sep 2003 . . Danny (Ferdinand VI was king then 1746, not Fernando VII) 
(cur) (last) . . 13:49, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 
(cur) (last) . . 13:46, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 
(cur) (last) . . 13:46, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 
(cur) (last) . . 13:45, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 
(cur) (last) . . M 13:45, 2 Sep 2003 . . Danny (typo) 
(cur) (last) . . 13:44, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 
(cur) (last) . . 13:39, 2 Sep 2003 . . 193.136.200.43 

Anyone having thoughts on this? Pascal 23:42, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article as it stands is someone's great whimper claiming possession of the island for Morocco. It is kind of look, I am really proving it, but all the sources are generic and almost unverifiable... Obviously the "pro-Spanish" argument would be similar ("We have been here since 1668 and..."). I think it would be best just to state the problems and the last mess there. Pfortuny 11:02, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, during the 2002 problem, the last Spanish soldiers to be on Perejil (in the early 60s, if my memory doesn't fail me) appeared on Spanish TV, so yes, Spain did occupy the island for a long time. Now it is unoccupied, which doesn't prove anything, one way or the other.

GOE vs GEO Perejil was atacked by a GOE, Grupo de Operaciones Especiales, but the article link to GEO, Grupo Especial de Operaciones

Timeline

There is a timeline of Perejil's history in the Spanish article. Please, translate it.

picture

The picture saying the island is to be seen as tiny in the top middle, which is actually a boat, is quite confusingInks002 (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV 2008

This article seems to be written from a European perspective. It reads like the Moroccans were villains and the Spanish were hero's. This also has no citations or references for anything at all.--Hfarmer (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV 2010 (and here we go again!)

This is the copy of the message I've posted on Aotearoa's talk page:

WP:NPOV on Perejil Island

Hello,

As you can see, despite the NPOV template, we're trying to keep the article as neutral as possible.

By introducing your map that indicates the Perejil Island as a Spanish territory claimed by Morocco, you infringe the WP:NPOV policy, and you make the text's information contradictory to the one of the map.

Btw, you infringe both the WP:3RR and the WP:NPOV, your changes will be reverted as long as the added map isn't neutral.

If the problem on Commons got no solution because of your friend, who, as an admin, blocked me following your request while I was making some NPOV corrections on the maps, despite the fact that the NPOV must be respected on all WP content (quoting the WP:NPOV page: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view), it will not be the case here.

Thanks for your understanding.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Isla de Perejil" rather than "Isla del Perejil"

In the first map in the article the island is called "Isla del Perejil", whereas in a Spanish Ministry of the Exterior and Cooperation publication on http://www.exteriores.gob.es/Portal/es/SalaDePrensa/Multimedia/Publicaciones/Documents/LaAplicaci%C3%B3ndelaMediaci%C3%B3n.pdf as well as in the second map in the article the island is called "Isla de Perejil". So I propose the map be changed accordingly, by whomever is capable to do that.Redav (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reversion rounds 9/2022

Hi, Mvtqui understand that this topic is a matter of dispute between Spain and Morocco. However, in your edits, you are claiming the island for Spain without reliable sources backing up the idea. A reliable source is necessary when making substantive changes like who "owns" the island. Otherwise, anyone could claim the island. Also, I am not Spanish or Moroccan, and when I arrived at this article, I could not understand the conflict because, your edits 1) removed some important context, such as removing other wikilinks that would help curious people (like me!) learn more about the topic and 2) introduced some English grammar issues that made the text hard to follow.

Hope this note helps clarify why I reverted your edits. I apologize for not starting this conversation earlier, when I first reverted you a few days ago.

However, I also see you've also revised the article again before I could respond, so I'm trying to avoid an edit war by bringing this to the talk page. Let's see if we can work together: Do you have any reliable sources about a recent change in the official status of this island? If you send along some sources, maybe we can work together to craft some text to accurately reflect the situation.

Cheers! — LumonRedacts 22:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

· understand that this topic is a matter of dispute between Spain and Morocco

I will make you understand. Morocco seeks Spanish territory for more than half a century, as I said in my edit, they took most but they are peevish of more, I am Spanish and I know history of Spain and Morocco, you truly are in America? good teaching on Spain and Morocco there? As I see it, and I am only a citizen read of publications, there is no dispute, there is an accord since 2002 as I said in my edit, and I am almost certain there was other settlement before Morocco invaded; there is no document in the page showing that Morocco by law dispute this island, the only thing that we see is that they peeve themselves that all Spanish African territories are theirs, as I show in my edit, and they peeve because this is greater than they of course

the whole page is a joke with Spain and of course they joke by lies. I dont write this for you i write it for the record

there are disputes in West Sahara, Gibraltar, Falklands, Antarctica etc (go to those pages) when those lands were taken more recently and by other causes. Perejil is not Western Sahara, is not Gibraltar, the Spanish right to the island is much stronger than the Moroccan claim to W Sahara and the British right to Gibraltar; the island was taken by Spaniards 600 years ago ffs; if some have some right to it they are the Portuguese, but they respect peaces and dont peeve, they behave as men

· you are claiming the island for Spain without reliable sources backing up the idea

I dont need to claim anything, and less to a liar, a troll or a shortsighted. it is right there in the page despite its ill form, the island is not in a limbo, the island is Spanish, belonging to Ceuta until the 90s, when they were separated after a Moroccan peeve, yet belonging to the Government Delegation of Ceuta, and was inhabited by Spaniards until by the 60s. And if you dont understand what is to invade other people's land with fake causes, and if you dont understand that Spain doesnt invade Moroccan islands i believe you should leave wikipedia

i dont have to justify my deeds to you but for the community i say that:

The introduction was bettered, false language deleted

The chapter Name was cleared, as before false language deleted, I was very neutral wording it crisis when i could word it invasion

In chapter History i clear the wording, from fake to true

i cleared out the Spain-Morocco "dispute" chapter. A joke with Spain. Also, this is not a military wiki and there is a page of the crisis

The chapter Sovereignty could be written by a Moroccan ministry of foreign affairs hireling (as all the page), it's all lies

The chapter Migration is a lie, it uses a Spanish journal as reference but nothing there even suggests that that was written in the wikipedia but i am certain that you with your curiosity yet checked this

The wikilinks were again tendentious to Morocco. if a link merits to be there is the one of the crisis

revert it to my last edit or better it from it, over Mvtqui (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts, @Cullen328 this also goes for you. your belief in Morocco makes revert all my work? The same page says that it is administered by Spain and claimed by Morocco in the right square, why you dont accept it for the rest of the page? why you dont go and change the Gibraltar page to put it in a limbo where it belongs to none because there is a dispute? why you dont do the same with the pages of Ceuta and Melilla where they are known as Spanish as, as I said in my edit, the Moroccan claim is for all Spanish African territories? you seem to not get this, the claim is not for an island the pathetic claim is for all Spanish African territories

this Help:Revert says:

· "reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing"

· "Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?"

I didnt delete the Moroccan claim as it was in the right square and the dispute was in the Categories; I only deleted the lie that Spain and Morocco are equal in the "dispute" (not my choice of words) and the island flows in a limbo, the last crisis was in 2002 and the accord, as we see, lives, so i think we may go forth; i would like that the main weight of the page were of biology and geology but sad politics has all the attention Mvtqui (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no "belief" in Morocco or any opposition to Spain, but the fact of the matter is that the status of this island is disputed. The article does not say that the two countries are equal in the dispute, whatever that means. As for Gibraltar, the lead section of that article properly makes it clear that Spain disputes British sovereignty. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@LumonRedacts @Cullen328 Memoria histórica y relaciones hispano-marroquíes here is a brief writ telling the spanishness of the island i will put the main of it to English if we get to finish this. also in the Spanish page there is more Mvtqui (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Mvtqui. I'm going to try to disengage to avoid an edit war but also want to acknowledge your response. I wouldn't be comfortable using that El Pais source myself, However, since I am a "a liar, a troll or a shortsighted," and/or owned by Morocco, I don't see how me responding in depth to this "diario" from El Pais would be helpful at this point, or welcome. Peace. LumonRedacts 03:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)