Talk:Canary Islands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Tifinagh This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however, the article does not have that version of its name in the lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Spanish Africa work group.
Assessment comments

First things first: Can you see the peaks of the island from Africa or not? The article says it can be seen on a clear day and then later, it can't be seen from the African coast. Which is it?

Well, on a very clear day you can see Afirca from the peak of El Teide, so presumably you could see El Teide from Africa.

To User:Tannin: Why was the ISO code removed? -- Error 23:48 19 May 2003 (UTC)

For the same reason other contributors removed them from the other country entres. Because this is supposed to be an encylopedia that is (a) written in readable English sentences, and (b) contains information that is generally useful and relevant. If, for some reason incomprehensible to me, you really want to include those meaningless gobledegook numbers that, let's face it, no-one ever heard of (in all probability) ever will hear of, then at least put them somewhere inconspicuous so that they don't mess up the entry proper. Tannin

I am trying to gather opinions in Talk:ISO 3166-1. What about "ISO country code: IC"? Though, in this case, it is not a country -- Error 00:50 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Completely irrelevant

In the sports section the only thing that appears is that a guy played baseball. In Spain nobody is interested in baseball so I would take it off and write somthing about Tenerife or Las Palmas Futbol Club. Is there anyone who doesn't agree?? ( don't think so) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.73.213 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Near Africa

I have removed the Morocco situation. Actually they are near Morocco and Western Sahara but specifying both is too long. -- Error 00:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The Canary Islands were first discovered by ancient Greek and Roman seafarers, yet it was not until the early 1400's that anyone made a serious attempt to conquer the Canaries." I doubt this. Is there any evidence for it? The Phoenicians were notorious for telling tales of what lay beyond the Pillars of Heracles in order to keep others from venturing that way. It seems far more likely that Phoenician/Carthaginian sailors would be familiar with it. I suggest that the above quoted sentence be deleted in lieu of evidence in support of the claim. 69.226.195.193 02:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I recall from my history lessons (I'm from Canary Islands), it's probable that no Greek nor Roman had ever more than a limited contact with the Islands (some Roman amphoras have been found at Lanzarote). Pliny got his description of the Islands from Juba, that claimed to have explored them. -- Heimy 6 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)

---

There are no one proof about the phoenician discovery of Canary Island; contrary, the first known contact of non indigenous peoples are roman: around 30 amphoras (from late Republic to late Empire) in the coast of many islands and the text of Pliny who give the name of Canaria.

-Fco

No proof, but some interesting hints. The Phoeniceans were probably one of the least "imperialist" major powers of human history; if there was no local population that could be traded with, they usually just didn't care about some new-discovered lands. Also, there are the Pyramids of Güímar which may be the "megalithic" structures supposedly seen by the Hanno expedition. If so, their builders were a) quite possibly not Guanches, b) probably entirely gone c. 500 BC, which c) means that the origin of Guanche culture could postdate this. One even cannot exclude that the Guanches were originally Berbers which had been settled there by the Romans or whomever, maybe as late as the 1st century BC. One millennium is entirely sufficient for a distinct culture to develop among non-seafaring people in an archipelago (but this scenario still begs the questions why/how the W islands were settled).
Are there written records connected to the Roman amphorae - i.e., notes on trade with the "Isles of Dogs"/"Fortunate Isles" in the "Oceanus", or somesuch?
That the Romans at least were aware of the archipelago and knew its approximate location is as certain as it gets. But apart from that... :( Dysmorodrepanis 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claimed by Morocco

Of minor (but still worthy) note is that Morocco claims the Canaries, in the same vein as its claim to Ceuta and Melilla. This information was removed earlier without comment, and I am restoring it. - Gilgamesh 10:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No mention of this is in the article. On what do the Morrocans base their claim? Bastie 23:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

. There are recent references on the internet to disputes between Spain and Morocco of how the territorial limits of Spain are applied to the Canaries [1] ; Morocco says there is no agreement. It is relevant because of possible oil deposits on the continental shelf. Here is a Guardian article which mentions a vague claim by Morocco to the Canary islandss: Morocco draws new territories into Parsley row

[edit] Louisiana & Texas

Someone want to add something here about the 18th century colonists recruited by the Spanish government for San Antonio and Louisiana, in the U.S.? I can write something from the Louisiana perspective, when I get time. --Michael K. Smith 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor English

I didn't get a chance to read the entire page, but I've noticed a lot of errors (fixed one or two) in the history section.. added cleanup boilerplate text. Looks like the page was translated from a different language using a poor computer translation service.

I tried to clean up the english on this article, but it still needs some work. The organization in this article is lacking as well. Chelsea99 03:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

A "trick question" I've come across from time to time is: "What animal are the Canary Islands named after?" The correct answer is supposed to be "dog" (from the Latin "Canis"), not the yellow bird. However, this article says: "The name comes from the Berber Canarii tribe, from the Atlas ( Morocco ) who occupied the island of Gran Canaria." This is the first I've heard about this (I've heard the dog explanation before, though, outside the quiz), can this be verified, and that "no dogs were used in the naming of this archipelago"? --Canuckguy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(Plus, and I should have noted this before, there are dogs on the flag itself. That would tend to lend credence to the "canis" explanation, would it not?) --Canuckguy 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The classical explanation it's about dog/canis, but recently a new explanation has appeared in pro-independence & pan-maghreb group activist. They said that canarii comes from a berber tribe, but it hasn't be demostrated. Old chronicles said that in Gran Canarias, at time of the conquest, there were big dogs, probably parents from actual Perro de presa canario, so the berber tale is not much credibly, only a tale for morroco romantics. Felipealvarez 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ¿dogs?

No se hablar inglés, así que rogaría que alguien tradujese este comentario para que otros wikipedistas lo puedan entender.

Si bien durante muchos años se defendió la teoría de que el nombre de Canarias hacía referencia a los perros (ya que esta misma explicación era la que aparecía en el texto de Plinio el Viejo), hoy en día hay otras teorías al respecto y que ofrecen una explicación distinta. En el norte de África existe el etnónimo Canarii, nombre de tribu bereber (los antiguos habitantes del archipiélago canario eran bereberes), y es probable que una parte de los habitantes de la isla que hoy se conoce como Gran Canaria procedieran de dicho grupo poblacional. Para más información consulten la wikipedia en español: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canarias.

Saludos.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.99.109 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 26 January 2006

Translation: "Although for many years the prevailing theory was that the name of the Canaries referred to the dogs that inhabited the islands (since this explanation appears in the text of Pliny the elder), today there are other theories about the matter that offer different explanation. In Northern Africa, there exists the ethnonym Canarii, the name of a Berber tribe (the ancient inhabitants of the archipelago were Berbers), and it is probable that some of the inhabitants of the island known today as Grand Canary were descendants of this tribe. For more information, consult the spanish Wikipedia's article about the Canaries." (end of translation)
This really needs to be supported by some more evidence. 1.) We need a credible source that this Canarii tribe ever existed, and 2.) We need a credible source that they inhabited Grand Canary, and 3.) We need a credible source that the name did not independently develop along the canus-canary route. ThePedanticPrick 18:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Pliny talk us about the "Canarii" of Maghreb; we don't know the name that the ancient inhabitants of Gran Canaria give to their people, but they always be according to the chronicles "canarios"

-Fco


If you can't speak English, how did you get this page? Felipealvarez 13:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles frequently link to their equivalents in other languages. ThePedanticPrick 18:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

an endemic species of large and fierce dogs - I've changed this to 'breed' on the assumption that that's what was meant. If they were really a distinct species, that needs elaboration and documentation. --Calair 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History part

The history part is long and tiresome to read. I tried to put it into some systematics, but it still needs a lot of editing - especially the part about the precolonial times.

There should be much more about later epoques and less about the origin of the guanches. (That should be put into the "guanches"-wiki)

Susanna 80.108.66.169 00:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section seems heavily flavored by original research. I am deleting the following sentence as it is particularly un-parseable and adds nothing to the article: "A common denominator to many of the theories, though, are the persisting effects of a diffusionist tradition that tends to resort to the archaeological record of different continents in the attempt to trace systematic cultural dispersions through stylistic analyses of the material productions, leading, in occasions, to rather far-fetched conclusions." It appears that the author has a beef with some uses of archaeology in determining where people come from. That's not relevant to the Canary Islands article. Touchstone 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've also deleted the following sentence as extremely wordy POV (which appear to be from someone who disagrees with the commonly accepted origins of the indigenous inhabitants):
"-- a dichotomy which is perhaps rather over-simplistic, especially if we consider the great variety in microclimates and natural resources occurring, not only throughout the archipelago, but also within certain individual islands. In any case, this division has been applied (generally in an equally clear-cut fashion) to the islands of Tenerife and Gran Canaria, the former being described as a pastoralist society and the latter as an agriculturalist one. "
"Most of the present knowledge derives, once again, from the contradictory and biased chronicles, whose ambiguous affirmations and descriptions often make it rather difficult for scholars to distinguish between what was originally the product of the chroniclers' misinterpretations, consciously concealed data, or actual religious syncretism caused by a century of contacts with the missionaries and other Europeans before the Spanish colonisations."
These academic disputes over archaeological methodology don't belong here. And wherever they belong, there has to be a better (shorter!) way to say it. Touchstone 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


-Removed "prehistoric" from "Excavations of a prehistoric settlement of El Bebedero on Lanzarote" since a settlement from the 1st-4th century is not prehistoric.

"Prehistoric" is not absolute. If no historical records exist from that period in the Canaries, the the El Bebedero settlement may very well be prehistoric. No one could seriously argue that 1st-4th century Rome is "prehistoric Rome," but according to Prehistory it is "generally accepted" that the end of the prehistoric era in New Guinea falls around 1900 AD. PubliusFL 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The bit on the theory of Álvarez Delgado needs some reviewing, and ideally a reference. It states:

"Álvarez Delgado, on the other hand, argues that the Canaries were uninhabited until 100 AD, when they were gradually discovered by Greek and Roman sailors. In the second half of the first century AD, Juba II abandoned North African prisoners on the islands, who eventually became the prehispanic Canarians."

Not only does "uninhabited until 100 AD" in the first sentence appear to conflict with "second half of the first century AD" in the second sentence, but Juba II was apparently dead well before the second half of the first century. Replace "AD" with "BC" in both sentences and it all makes sense, but I don't know what Álvarez Delgado has actually argued (and with no reference, I have no way to find out). PubliusFL 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, BC dates instead of AD dates make more sense in the bit about Álvarez Delgado. The following quote from a Spanish-language article citing Álvarez Delgado seems to confirm that BC is correct. I will change the references to BC until someone more knowledgeable than me can say otherwise. "Su apreciación viene de que él coloca la llegada de los Guanches al Archipiélago, hacia el siglo I antes de nuestra era, pero los últimos trabajos de los antropólogos no confirman esta tésis." [2] PubliusFL 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Until today' section - typo?

How is the following supposed to read: "was put forth for the Canary how another communities"? - Istvan 17:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the second part would mean: "... like in other communities." (In German the word "wie" meaning both "how" and "like". - could be written by a german native speaker or could be the same in other languages) Still i don't get the full meaning of the sentence.
Susu the Puschel 19:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably just a poor Spanish-to-English translation. English "how", "like" and "as" can be translated as Spanish "como"/"cómo".
Heimy 00:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion/ Primary language of the Islands

Simple questions what is the primary, as well as secondary religions of the islands?

Additionally degree of english spoken and overall safety.

Also, the dominant ethnic, make up of the islands.


Thanks,


Lane

Most of the Canarian population is white and either Catholic or non-religious. There is also a small but growing Muslim minority made up of African inmigrants. Inmigrants of Latin American origin can also be found.
Although English is taught throughout the primary and secondary education, not many are fluent in this language. However, those who work in the tourist industry usually know English.
Overall safety? This is difficult to quantify. The Canary Islands are definitely safer (and much wealthier) than any other African region, and in fact safer (and wealthier) than some Western European regions.
Virso

[edit] Provinces

At the end of the article say Provinces of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife; that is a mistake, the first province is called only "Las Palmas"; but, it's impossible of to correct.

-Fco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.134.152 (talk • contribs)

I have amended the template to list and link to Las Palmas (province) and Santa Cruz de Tenerife (province). Well spotted! Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Graciosa

I think it should be made clear that, despite the fact that other minor islands exist, the archipielago consists of only 7 major islands. Therefore, in my humble opinion, La Graciosa should be considered separately in the Physical Geography section.

Perhaps a new section regarding these minor islands should be created separately. The minor islands are:

- La Graciosa (the only one among these minor islands which is inhabited). - Alegranza - Montaña Clara - Roque del Este - Roque del Oeste - Lobos Island (near Fuerteventura) - Several other "roques" (rocks, small "islands") of less importance (for example, the Anaga Rocks in Tenerife).

The first 5 in the list form what is known as Archipielago Chinijo ("chinijo" is a local word meaning "small") and belong to the council of Teguise in the nearest island, Lanzarote (province of Las Palmas). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walkingintolight (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Coordinates

Should we remove the coordinates from the first sentence of the article and put them on the right side like on other WP articles that have coordinates? I would do it, but I don't know how to. LinguistAtLarge 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geology

There is nothing of substance about the geology, which is a pity. I remember that the archipelago can be divided into an entirely volcanic W part and the 2 major E islands which is volcanic superstructure sitting on a piece of continental socket. Might have some sources lying around, but I can't find them at short notice. Any takers? Dysmorodrepanis 18:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proposal

I posted a proposal you might like at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Berbers. Chris 09:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad English

There are too many Spaniards in this pot. I will try and edit the English, but it needs to be left alone by non-native speakers. This article is poorly worded and certainly doesn't keep a NPOV, for example, "This vain attempt by the English." Sheesh. Wuapinmon 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be disrespectful towards other users. Feel free to contribute as anyone else, though. Regards, --Asteriontalk 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISO Code wrong

The ISO 3166-2 code for the Canary Islands is wrong -- it is now listed as CN, which is for the People's Republic of China. I am however unable to find a proper replacement code.

Martijn819 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably uses Spain's. I should have looked into it before, as it stroke me as quite odd. Asteriontalk 09:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It uses ES-CN indeed. --Asteriontalk 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Cruz de Tenerife is the first capital

Santa Cruz de Tenerife is the first capital, reason why to Santa Cruz there is that you name her first, this way this in the Statute of Autonomy of Canaries. Greetings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.202.111 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)