Talk:Canary Islands

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?

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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

. 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Saludos.

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]