Talk:Canary Islands

Hello I want to put an image of the dunes of the Medano, Tenerife, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenerifecanarias (talk • contribs) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi I would like to put also a photo of the airport of Tenerife .Since Tenerife South is the first tourist Spanish airport of Aena's network. http://www.aena.es/csee/Satellite?cid=1048146820956&pagename=subHome&SiteName=TFS&c=Page&Language=EN_GB

Hello I would like that the equipment of Wikipedia was leaving me to add the Independence of Canaries because since Canaries it was a territory conquered by the Castilians.

Many graces Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenerifecanarias (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like that put THE CATHEDRAL OF LA LAGUNA. Thank you Wikipedia.

I think that it is necessary to put some image of the streetcar of Tenerife, because there are many people he would like to know since it is. A greeting to Wikipedia and graces for leaving myself to put the photo.

I would like to add also that instead of putting the stadium of Las Palmas should put that of the Tenerife, which was the first stadium created in seven islands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenerifecanarias (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC) And I would like out of the "ESTADIO HELIODORO RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ".

Under the "Religion" heading what does the following mean? "The appearance of the Virgin of Candelaria in Tenerife phase starts in the Canary Islands to Christianity." It is absolute nonsense to me. Tiddy (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not just to you ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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 Africa 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)

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)

I totally agree, it seems this piece has been added by an America. I am sure there are far more interesting things to say about Canary island sports than the fact somebody from there played in the MLB in 1913. This is about the canary Islands, not American sport! Somebody please write something about the football (soccer) teams, which ARE of interest, and take out this silly reference to an MLB player that nobody has heard of or cares about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.204.91 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2009 (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)

---

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)

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)

On NOTHING. Morocco does NOT claim the Canary Islands. Anyway, this claim would be arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.119.6 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2012 (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  ; 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)

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)

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)

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)

The 'giant dogs' may have been seals, which bark much like dogs and are similarly gregarious, and can be extremely fierce. Cold currents are rich in fish, and seals feat in places rich in fish.Pbrower2a (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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." PubliusFL 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. my removal of this text: "According to Pliny the Elder, the archipelago was found to be uninhabited when visited by the Carthaginians under Hanno the Navigator, but that they saw ruins of great buildings." This was supported by a citation to a 1764 book "The History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands." However, a text search for all references to Hanno in Pliny's Natural History ( http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/searchresults?target=en&inContent=true&q=Hanno&doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137 ) find only 5 instances, none of which say any of that. The reference in book 6, chapter 36, says that Hanno sailed through that area, and landed on some islands somewhere where he says his crew was chased by monstrous women all covered with hair, but Pliny concludes that "We only know, as a fact well-ascertained, that some few [islands] were discovered by Juba over against the country of the Autololes, upon which he established a manufactory of Gætulian purple." That is the reference to the Canary islands, so the text explicitly concludes that we do not know that Hanno saw the Canary Islands. Philgoetz (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The correct reference in Pliny is book 6 chapter 37, "The Fortunate Islands", in which he says King Juba, not Hanno, reported finding ruins on one of the islands. Philgoetz (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

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

There's also a vibrant jewish community in Gran Canaria, with their own beit knesset. There're also a few jewish families in Tenerife but as far as I know, they do not have an organised kehila.

--161.111.222.191 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

--- Updated to say "Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Province" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom888 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is wrong. It should read "Las Palmas Province". Las Palmas de Gran Canaria is just the capital city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.222.191 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

In one of its catastrophe shows The History Channel predicts that at some point the side of one of the mountains of one of the Islands -mostly likely La Palma - will collapse and create a 150 to 400 foot high wave that will inundate most of the Atlantic coasts. Searching "La Palma catastrophe" I got a few leads. Lots more can be found with other terms: UK History museum, selfpublished, news story, Tsunami alarm system. In case someone wants to work on it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly worth investigating. If the people suggesting this are more than a random assortment of crackpots, the fact is surely worth adding to the article. JustinBlank (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim that La Palma will collapse in to the Atlantic Ocean is disputed as is the claim that the resultant tsunami would be massive. A person has been updating and adding references to the Cumbre Vieja wiki page which contains much better info about the threat than here. A lot of the predictions are based on false or bad science it seems. Only 3 scientist support the claim a lot more dispute it.

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

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, --Asterion^talk 10:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is just normal that there are Spaniards in an entry regarding a spanish region. Feel free to correct as many mistakes as you wish, but just be respectful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.222.191 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish and English - my father he is Spanish and my mama she is English. You complain about "bad" English because of Spanish translations - but have you ever stopped and engaged the brain and then thought how the English language translates in to Spanish or Portugese or Italian or German or French for example. You would be very surprised - one that comes immediate to my mind is the one that visitors to France used to say - "My Postillion has off my bike fallen" which I can't say in French but that is how it was understood. Comprende!

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. Asterion^talk 09:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It uses ES-CN indeed. --Asterion^talk 10:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no first or second capital in the Canary Islands. The fact that one needs to be listed before the other has nothing to do with the city order. Fact is: both cities are the official capital of the Canary Islands, and if you, as a citizen of Tenerife, don't like it, I suggest you contact the cabildo authorities. Both Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife share the title of "capital city" and we, as Canarians, should be respectful with each other and avoid empty arguments that only promote jealousy and bad behaviour with our own brothers and neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.222.191 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

what is a sever letter meaning for Canary Islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.141.3 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

Do they use the Euro here? please add. (as per this article: Madeira_Islands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesedwardsmith (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Euro is the official currency in many countries of the EU, Spain is one of them. Canary Islands belong to Spain, and they use Euro as their currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.242.47 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article at present contains a mixed usage of decimals and commas to represent fractions. I am familiar with how in North America, place values are depicted as 765,432.1, while European countries will punctuate oppositely, 765.432,1. Both instances will mean Seven-Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand, Four-Hundred Thirty-Two and 10⁄100.

The point I'm trying to make is that for most of this article, a decimal represents a fraction, except in § GDP statistics, where a comma now represents a fraction. Outside of a direct quotation, mixed formatting should not be used. Which standard shall this article follow?

I would also propose utilizing Template:Currency to avoid confusing future editors as to whether 41 million euros is implied, or 41 billion euros. This confusion is the point I'm trying to make. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, in that section, as elsewhere, the commas are thousands separators, not decimal points. I'm not aware of the usage "765.432,1" which you describe. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I must have read population or distance measurements; sorry about that. I'll proceed with Template:Currency. I find using 40,923 and million together, confusing. I will assume this means 40,923,000; three 0s and a comma display fewer characters than the word 'million'. I'll leave someone else to apply whatever regional format they'd like. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No. They mean 40 923 million. The GDP per capita is 19 thousand euros, not 19 euros. Because people can be confused I prefer not to use a comma as a thousands separator, and use a space where necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Then when written for NA, it would inply 40,923,000,000 (Forty-billion, nine-hundred twenty-three million). Why don't we just write it as "40.923 billion" if that's what we mean, rather than "40,923" million? If you prefer it commaless, then a simple correction to the template was all that was necessary, not a blanket revert. I have reapplied the template, now formatted with thin spaces rather than commas, as you recommend. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Billion is another classic way to confuse people, depending on which side of the Atlantic they are. I'm happy with the way you've formatted that section of the article now. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Tenerife is the island with more population of Canaries and of Spain, look at it in the page in Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achineche

He says: Tenerife, with 865.070 inhabitants, is the island most filled with Canaries and with Spain. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.178.189 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no first or second capital in the Canary Islands. The fact that one needs to be listed before the other has nothing to do with the city order. Fact is: both cities are the official capital of the Canary Islands, and if you, as a citizen of Tenerife, don't like it, I suggest you contact the cabildo authorities. Both Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and Santa Cruz de Tenerife share the title of "capital city" and we, as Canarians, should be respectful with each other and avoid empty arguments that only promote jealousy and bad behaviour with our own brothers and neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.222.191 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the Statute of Autonomy of Canaries the first city in being named is Santa Cruz de Tenerife.

It see in the page version in Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estatuto_de_Autonom%C3%ADa_de_Canarias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.233.154 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

i'd like to know whether the Canary Islands are part of Africa as not all references state this.MollaP (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends what your definition of "part of Africa" is. They are not on the African continental plate, so in the geographical sense they are not African. They are politically part of Spain, which is a European country, so not African in that sense. However they are closer to Africa than to Europe so if you arbitrarily assign them to the nearest continent then they are African. It's a bit like asking if an orange is a type of apple or a type of pear. Koekemakranka (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Parts of the article point in different directions, though none are explicit. We read "...since European discovery", "Europeans began to explore the islands", "bananas and tobacco are grown for export to Europe", "proximity to Europe" which all imply that the Canaries are not part of Europe; however, we also read that "Teide in 2010 became the most visited national park in Europe". It would be useful to get some reliable sources (rather than just editors' opinions) on this. --Isthmus of Kra (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Geologically and Tectonically the whole of the Canary Island Archipelago is located on the submarine part of the African Plate and as it rotates westward so do the islands. Politically the Government is Spain, but the Canary Islands have many matters devolved to them which is why they are an autonomous region. Whilst Spain is in the EU the Canary Islands are not and travellers have the same restrictions as travellers from other non-EU countries entering the EU as regards alcohol tobacco etc.The Geologist (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

CORRECTION- Canary Islands are indeed part of the European Union, and canarian people are considered to be european citizens by the EU. The islands have special regulation in terms of tobacco, alcohol, and other taxes, which causes restrictions when it comes to transporting this substances out of the islands. However, European laws and rights are fully applied on the islands, and they are officially part of the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.26.235 (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Canary Islands are geographically located on Africa. However, culturally and politically canarian people are majorly European descendents. Even though they are closer to Africa than they are to Europe, their particular history makes them a fully recognised and integrated part of Spain. Language and culture of the Canary Islands are european (having peculiarities only found on the islands. This peculiarities resemble more to Latin American culture than to any African custom). This is why Canaries are considered to be part of Europe. June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.26.235 (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

...what does it even mean to be "culturally European". Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic. 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:5839:7178:EA6D:C6C6 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

it means that up until the present day most of the population are the descendants of Spaniards that arrived from Europe and remain under Spanish control, and by and large share that country's political and cultural characteristics, that is, being mostly Christian or formerly Christian, a European language as their mother tongue (Spanish), Roman/French law and and a Capitalist, democratic, NATO aligned administration 2A02:9130:90B1:5C1C:D3FC:C073:9A80:D52F (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The website www.turismodecanarias.com (or redirect domain www.canarias.es) should be entered into the External Links. This is the most complete and up-to-date resource regarding tourism for the Canary Islands as a whole. The website is kept very current on events, news, press, and information regarding Canary Islands tourism.

According to the guidelines of Wikipedia this is exactly what kind of link should go into the External Link section as it is the "Official Website".

I suggest the following for the English version of this page:

• Official Tourism Website of the Canary Islands

This official tourism website is already on the Spanish, Italian, French versions of Wikipedia. It is still needed on the English and German versions.

Heatman1 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this site is mainly an "Official Marketing Tool", not a reliable scientific source. As the site does "not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article", I see no reason to link it. W. Edlmeier (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The official tourism website deserve reconsideration. True it is an "Official Marketing Tool"; however, it also provides a extremely value resource concerning Cultural Events in the Canary Islands which is prominent at the bottom of the homepage. This information is regularly vetted for current relevance and covers all of the islands; no other single site on the web does this. It is very reliable Cultural Events source. Since the Wikipedia article is also concerned with the Cultural of the Canary Islands, it would be a disservice not to provide Wikipedia users a link to this resource. Heatman1 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a very worng mistake, Spanish is not an etnic group, is the mainly language, Canarian are a diferent etnic group than spanish. Spanish etnic group is about 250.000 hab that are migrants arrived since 1950 and his sons.

I quote the article:

""despite the continuous changes suffered by the population (Spanish colonization, slave trade), aboriginal mtDNA [direct maternal] lineages constitute a considerable proportion [42 – 73%] of the Canarian gene pool. Although the Berbers are the most probable ancestors of the Guanches," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.48.9 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Error: The status of capital city is shared by the cities of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Las Palmas de Canaria, True: The status of capital city is shared by the cities of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,

You need to take a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.59.213.123 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Las Palmas was considered the capital of the Canary Islands, but without any real legal and thus was considered but never was capital for the whole of the right word, because it was only capital of the Canaries, La Laguna in Tenerife (and Yet this was for three centuries, while Las Palmas by two). But Santa Cruz de Tenerife it was with all the honors and legal and real capital of the sole and sovereign Archipelago Canario up in 1927 years with the shared Las Palmas. Greetings.

Officially, Las Palmas is the capital. Inter-man (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Canarians are also Spanish.

Catalans, Basques, Galicians, Castilians, Andalusians, Canarians...all of us are Spanish.

If we talk about languages, 25% of Basques speak usually in the Basque language, 50% of Catalans speak usually in Catalan language and 55% of Galicians speak usually in Galician language....but a Canarian language doesn´t exist (apart from the wishtle language in the Gomera island, which I don´t think will ever be adopted as a national languge in the Canary islands instead of Spanish)--81.36.210.254 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

politically are Spanish citizens, but not ethnically ethnically it is a rare thing, ie, there is a base, the Guanche (Berber), where then mixed with Spanish, Portuguese, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, black slaves , Moroccan, Saharan, Canary has always been a place of transition and rest in the Atlantic Ocean and many civilizations in antiquity finished arriving in the Canary Islands, some stayed and had children, well after the Spanish conquest started coming the Portuguese, Spanish, French, English, Germans, Italians, it is as if we took a cake base (the Guanches) and you were to add the other ingredients (other ethnic groups) that make both culturally and ethnically Canary mixing various parts of the world, africa, Arab, South America, the Mediterranean, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and recently made ​​the arrival of a lot of Asian (oriental oasia) people ...im Canary ...sorry for my english(user: mayancel)(talk) 25:05, 16 03 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if the Canary Islands are members of the EU and use the Euros? As they are a Spanish, occupied land?

Thank you

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, the Canary Islands are part of the EU and use the Euros. As for being Spanish, they are one of the 17 member communities of the Spanish state; in fact, the relationship between Canary Islands and the rest of Spain is much closer than the relationship of Hawaii to the U.S.:

a) Canary Islands is just 1,200 Kms. from the Spanish Mainland, while Hawaii is 3,500 Kms from the American Mainland.

b) Canary Islands were part of Spain when Spain was created in 1492 by the Catholic Kings, while Hawaii was incorporated to the U.S. as late as 1898 and as a U.S. state in 1959.

c) Canarians have the same language and names as Castilians; there is not a different Canarian language..Meanwhile, many Hawaiians have a different language and names than Mainland Anglo Americans.

So the Canary Islands (2 million people) are much, much closer to Mainland Spain than Hawaii (1,3 million) is Mainland America.--80.31.73.71 (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WRONG - Spain is a member country of the EU, but the Canary Islands are not. You take alcohol from any of the Canary Islands into the EU you face the same restriction as a person coming from say Australia - 1 litre of liquor, 200 cigarettes etc. I know because last December I was stopped at Malaga having flown in from Tenerife. I was carrying a 1 litre bottle of whisky and 300 cigarettes. I had to pay duty on 100 Cigarettes. I had deliberately entered the Red Channel as I had other goods to declare.The Geologist (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Following the previous denial that the Canary Islands are no part of the EU. They are considered an outermost region of the EU and thus are part of Spain and the EU in the same way. They do have a distinct regulation regarding the taxes and its borders, though. The islands pay a lower tax rate for most of the goods and therefore its export is controlled heavier, as in your case. I live myself in Tenerife and have to experience the same pain with customs duties often. 87.217.113.208 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I entirely removed the "pre-spanish" section which was completely inacurate (the least I can say).

From January to December 2009, we could learn that there were in Canaria a "A true, small Mediterranean" group, a "berber type", and even a "Crô-Magnon type; with a low, rectangular face, especially characterized by bigonial prominence".

No need to write much, just check by yourself:

• The original edit
• All the editions made by this "contributor"
• The reference for what was written

This edit was partially altered by subsequent modifications, but curiously nobody had ever completely removed this piece of shit (12 months!). --Syrmonsieur (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)