Talk:Isla Perejil

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] (http://www.rnw.nl/achtergronden/html/marok020716.html) 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] (http://www.africahome.com/annews/categories/international/EpkyAyAAulcHjeHwmF.shtml) "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.