Talk:Falkland Islands

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Islands (Rated FA-class) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated FA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject British Overseas Territories (Rated FA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Argentina (Rated FA-class, Top-importance) v t e This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine politics. If you would like to participate, you can improve Falkland Islands, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject South America / Falkland Islands (Rated FA-class, High-importance) v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Falkland Islands work group (marked as Top-importance). Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team (Rated FA-class, Low-importance) v t e This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.Wikipedia 1.0Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial TeamTemplate:WP1.0Version 1.0 articles  FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is Uncategorized.

Nomenclature defined by the United Nations

Hello. As I said earlier, it is necessary for this project article, the impartial nomenclature used by the United Nations, since this territory is under dispute between two countries. Nomenclature used in all languages, including english. Furthermore, this title adopted by the UN, in addition to being widely used, seems to be the most impartial for the project. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings. Welcome FINALLY to the discussion. Your view, that such a convention is impartial, I would imagine is not actually shared by a lot of frequent editors and contributors here. I do not wish to be rude, but I would like to see more than just "the UN says it, so it must be so" in backing up this change and article move. We are, however, all ears to any subsequent material and/or discussion. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have often seen editors keen to assume the UN is impartial, particularly when they are using UN citations to back up their argument. In practise, the UN is not, it's resolutions are achieved by majority voting and corrupted by international power politics. So in practise the UN is neither impartial nor neutral on many topics. In fact, the current policy arose because the Argentine government refuses to even recognise or use their English language name (even in documents produced in the English language). Wikipedia's policy is to use the common name in the language appropriate for the wiki, hence I have no problem with using Falkland Islands on the English wikipedia, Islas Malvinas on the Spanish. In any case, we have a policy to also include the Spanish name after the first usage of the English name. Hence, I see no reason to change, in fact I don't see the change as complying with WP:NPOV but rather giving more prominence to a viewpoint that denies the English name even exists. WCM_email 16:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia typically uses whatever name is most common in English. From the neutrality policy: If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. The article titles policy also makes it clear that we should prefer the common English name even if that can be seen as biased. English speakers overwhelmingly use the term "Falkland Islands", as "Islas Malvinas" is Spanish. The United Nations isn't the arbiter of English usage. WP:NCFALKLAND also says that articles should use the Spanish name once in the article lead but that "Falkland" should be used otherwise. Hut 8.5 17:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The UN's considerations are neutral because give equal space to both sides of the dispute. If impartial considerations are not welcome, what would they be? The ideas of a British islander? Or the ideas of an Argentine on the continent? When I read this entry for the first time, it immediately caught my attention the way it was presented, almost completely omitting the situation of the dispute and consolidating only one side. See, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to defend a point of view in a dispute. The definitions of the United Nations in this dispute are neutral, and are in agreement with the fundamental principles for the existence of this project. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've noted the current title is absolutely consistent with the neutrality policy. The article doesn't only present one side of the dispute or pretend that there is no dispute. Hut 8.5 17:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, it is quite common for people unfamiliar with these sorts of questions to assume that the United Nations is somehow an inherently neutral body. It is not. The United Nations is an inherently political body that has actually fought wars in the past. Its choice of terminology tends to reflect the niceties of international diplomacy rather than the way the language is actually used. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we prefer the way the language is actually used.

It used to be quite common for people to make the same mistake with the CIA. That one happens less nowadays, probably because we no longer use the CIA World Factbook quite so extensively as we did in the past. Kahastok talk 19:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ismael Silva Oliveira. Have you made any effort to change the title of the page of the Spanish wikipedia to °Malvinas (Islas Falkland)"? or that of the Portuguese wikipedia to "Malvinas (Ilhas Falkland)"? There is a lot of space for adding neutrality to Falklands articles on the English wikipedia, but the name of this article is not a legitimate concern in that respect. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Add “Falklander” as demonym

I think the demonym “Falklander” should be added to the quick facts because it is used within the article. It also has a Merriam-Webster entry. Comm.unity (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem with your suggestion, I support it. --James Richards (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. WCM_email 18:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

JeridoMaster (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

change "Falklands islands" to "Falkland Islands" even in English translation

Where exactly is there an instance of "Falkland islands" with "islands" in lowercase? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The request was for Falklands islands, making the request even more puzzling. Where are the examples of this use? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I found a cite that referred to the "Falklands Island Government" and "Falklands Islands Census 2016", and I've fixed them. I don't know if that's what was requested though. Kahastok talk 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kahastok talk 18:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Edits by R.Jensen

[1] This seems somewhat of a contrived edit to me. It appears on the face of it designed to work the cites that RJensen has been seeking to add to a number of articles, even though they weren't used in the article. I don't see it adds anything to the article and sits rather poorly in that section. Given this is a Featured Article, we should be striving to maintain article quality. However, sticking to my 1RR policy bringing it here for additional review. WCM_email 14:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well I would say (anything else aside) it's in the wrong place, as it seems to be talking about claims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely looks like the wrong place for it - the section is about the culture of the Falkland Islands and the added text is talking about British justifications for their position in the sovereignty dispute. I'm also not sure there are any "local demands for decolonization" at all. Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute might be a better place for it. Hut 8.5 18:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have not read the sources, but it seems to me the text used and cited are a bit out of place, but there again the whole subsection weighted to non-cultural detail. Perhaps an rewrite would help? Assuming the sources are genuine and are being used correctly I think a repositioning within the article would be better rather than a removal. But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hut. Are there "local demands" for decolonization? Are those locals the .2% from the 2013 referendum? I've never heard of it.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 22:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Don’t confuse local hostility towards Britain/“Mainlanders” as some sort of greater indication the Falkland’s wish to be more independent from the UK.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:851A:E67:1C:3751 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Without expressing an opinion on the merits, I'll just mention two points: when you raise a Talk page discussion about a specific editor as you did here with User:Rjensen, even if it's a side issue, let alone naming the editor in the section header, you are bound to notify them of the discussion, so they can respond. Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, I will bear that in mind in the future. I know who he is but that doesn't give him carte blanche to edit war to force material into a featured article contrary to WP:BRD - I notice he seems to have been emboldened by your post to do so again. WCM_email 00:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What I have been doing regarding many of the territories of the former British Empire is looking at the major scholarly studies that have been fully vetted by scholars and deal with major historical topics. The British actions in 1982 made the islands world famous--and were argued pro/con in terms of colonization and decolonization. Hence a brief summary of the scholarship is appropriate or else our users will not hear about the issues. And yes, the political values of the inhabitants is an important aspect of their "culture"--see Political Culture...an analogy in 2021 is Britons/Brexit and the popular sense of Europeanness; or in USA, a sense of distrust of the federal government. Rjensen (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear you don't have a consensus for this edit. I really don't see the point in adding the opinion of one academic, we're building an encyclopedia here not an academic reference source. And I don't want to give the impression this is a green light for a detailed exposition on the academic literature on this niche subject, it would totally unbalance the article. WCM_email 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

the material in question was evaluated and approved by a series of five to ten scholarly editors and experts consultants, and has been well reviewed and not challenged. Thus it represent a consensus of experts on a topic central to the recent history of the islands in UK and in the Falklands themselves. The "unbalance" notion is tossed out without any argument or evidence or citations to experts. Fact is the Falklands in the 1980 became am important international issue: affecting the islands themselves as well as Argentina and UK & involving the USA as well. So it's not a little "niche" topic. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think if it was trimmed down to the essential Cultural aspect, perhaps "There is a strong “kith and kin” identification with the people of the United Kingdom", it would fit. The bit about there being little demands for decolonisation could fit in the Sovereignty dispute section, although it may seem a bit redundant to the referendum result. CMD (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick question. How did this Argentine academic, reviewed by two American academics gain this insight into Falklands culture, without ever visiting or even talking to Falkland Islanders? WCM_email 07:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the background of the academic in question, none of the added content from the diff feels like the sort of particularly extraordinary claim that would prompt me to look into it. CMD (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a very relevant question, when academics are arguing they provide a scholarly analysis of public opinion in Falklands on a major issue without actually doing any research with the people concerned I would question the conclusion they reached. As I have many friends in the islands I would dispute the rather simplistic interpretation of the relationship, whilst they are part of the British diaspora the Falkland Islanders do have their own and very distinctive identity. I also question why this academic was selected and why not a wider view of the literature - again not a green light for a detailed exposition on the academic literature on this niche subject. WCM_email 10:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mathlog, here Secondly, User:Roger 8 Roger, with respect to "pushing an agenda", allow me to point out that Richard J. Jensen is a professional historian and creator of H-Net. Thanks, you are taking my comments here But, I have not looked into this in depth or to what extent the editor is or is not pushing an agenda. out of context. I was giving mild support to Jensen's addition. My concern was that they were out of place, which others have also stated. Being wary of editors pushing an agenda on anything to do with the Falklands is a necessary requirement on WP, because agenda pushing comes readily from both sides, but more blatently from the Argentine side. Now that I know now who you are, Rjensen and I note with some interest your reference to Great Britain, when the UK or GB and Ireland would both be more correct; and I am slightly puzzled as to why the islands became world famous in 1982 due to Britain's actions. Why didn't they become famous when the Argentine's invaded? I accept they became more famous once the UK sent a fleet, but they were still already headline news. About the 5-10 scholars, their opinions need to be published and used here to carry ant weight. Although I can see a point in having Jensen's edits in the culture section, on further consideration I also agree that they would be better put elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a text book and should be structured accordingly. However, I welcome any debate about this because it is better than most of the other, usually low key, topics that are discussed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

When I read this, my immediate reaction is, who cares what Ezequiel Mercau thinks? The claim above is that this is a brief summary of the scholarship. But it isn't. The proposed text in the article is quite explicit on this point. It's the POV of a single historian.

So, why should this particular historian's POV occupy such a large proportion of this section? I don't see it. Do reliable sources on the topic of the Falkland Islands routinely give this much WP:WEIGHT to the POV of Ezequiel Mercau? Surely not. So why is he special, that his POV gets expounded in detail and every other historian's gets ignored?

And TBH I'm not convinced the text even makes sense. Instead a predominant sentiment is a close "kith and kin" identification with the people of Great Britain and their "loyalty to the Crown." What does that even mean? Is it claiming a close "kith and kin" identification with the British people and with the British people's "loyalty to the Crown"? Or it is claiming a close "kith and kin" identification with the British people and with the Falkland Islanders' "loyalty to the Crown"? How precisely do you have a close "kith and kin" identification with an abstract noun phrase such as "loyalty to the Crown", when "kith and kin" means "friends and family"?

For these reasons I don't think this is an appropriate text to add to a featured article. Kahastok talk 18:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The History of the Islands prior to John Davis references that should be mentioned on the Article which assumes the first landing to be that of John Strong.

- Americo Vespuccio may have visited the islands in 1502 as they are depicted on his map [Kohen y Rodríguez, 2005. The Malvinas/Falklands between history and law refutation of the British pamphlet "getting it right: thereal history of the Falklands/Malvinas" p. 31]

- In 1520, Alonso de Camargo landed on the Island and lived there for almost a year from February 4th 1540 until the 3th of December 1540 [Goebel, Julius (1983).The Struggle for the Falkland Islands.New Haven and London: Yale University Press. P 32-36]

- The first british landing was said to be attributed to John Davis [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 3]

- Several maps already existed of the Islands by the time of John Davis landing or any following landing after him [Kohen, Rodríguez, p. 32; 2005, Goebel, p. 56; 1983] (Referred before in this talk post)

- The most unquestionable visit was made by the dutch Sebald de Weert in 1600 [Freedman, Lawrence (2005). The Official History of the Falklands Campaing. Whitehall Histories: Government Official History Series. Volume I: The Origins of the Falklands War. Routledge. ISBN 0-7146-5206-7. page 59-60] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We do "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic". The problem is that Cap Strong made the first recorded landing, its not just speculation, he said he landed there (and named them).Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Who (by the way) is John Davis?Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to what was said:

1. Kohen and Rodriguez is a self-published work, it's a polemic written by two laywers to try to discredit an influential pamphlet written by Dr Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper. It's riddled with errors, for example at one point they criticise another document as their work, which they didn't even write or have any involvement with. Per WP:SPS it is not a source we can use.

2. The claim that Amerigo Vespucci saw the islands has long been discredited. It's based on the Soderini letter, which was proven to be a forgery long ago. No serious historian gives such claims the light of day but it does illustrate the Kohen-Rodriguez document to be flawed in that they repeat it.

3. It isn't likely that Camargo visited the islands, again this is an example of Kohen-Rodriguez presenting conjecture as fact; although you've attributed this to Goebel it's clear it is from Kohen-Rodriguez. The conjecture is based on the description of the islands but some aspects don't fit eg the presence of forests. A reconstruction of Camargo's voyage by Felix Riesenberg indicates that the most likely landing point would have been Isla de los Estados. In some respects Isla de los Estados is a much better fit as fauna and flora is very similar but there are forests.

4. Some islands do appear on a series of early maps that could be the Falklands and there is conjecture that a Portuguese expedition may have discovered them before Davis. However, there isn't a single documented voyage that includes such claims of prior discovery. WCM_email 16:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

John Davis: https:/wiki/John_Davis_(explorer)

1. I do not think is full of errors, as some of their sources are reliable, specially those recording historical documents. I guess is not accepted and disregarded as it contradicts points that do not suit the british claim over the island, but this is my personal opinion. I am going to have a closer look and investigation to their work asap.

2. I wrote that he MAY have, because of course is not sure weather he was there or not. The claim of forgery is not based on the Sorderini letter of the alleged voyage of 1497–1498, (in 1497-98 it is imposible to have maped nor see the southern tip of South america, but later). It is based on Vespuccio voyage of 1502 and even maybe to the trip of 1503 which indeed occur but is unknown if Vespuccio was there or not. So following his records made by him of the americas we can see depicted some islands believed to be the Malvines/Falklands. I think is worth mentioning this on the article because it is not sure if he was there or not. But it indicated that some explorers had at least came around the area.

Leaving it as "Claims of discovery date back to the 16th century, but no consensus exists on whether early explorers discovered the Falklands or other islands in the South Atlantic"(this would also include Strong by the way) as an overly vague referrence that seems to make those discoveries less important in order to make Strong landing stand out as "the first" landing when is disputed internationally to have been so. The voyage of John Strong is also quite unlikely to have been the first and is highly disputed as being the first recorded landing. It's in fact only accepted by British sources for obvious claim reasons, but non-british sources considered previous landings such as those recorded by the expedition led by the ship "Obispo de Plasencia", in which the tripulation went to land in the Big Island of the archipelago that the spanish sailors even named as "Puerto de las Zorras" where they lived for over 10 months. Other sources also indicate the first landing to be a that of a French. [ Lorenz, Federico (2014). «Capítulo 02. Pero ¿quiénes las descubrieron?». Todo lo que necesitás saber sobre Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Paidós. p. 27. ISBN 9789501204049.] and to that we have to add the Dutch Landing on the Islands in 1600

3. Camargo lived for over one year in the islands as it has been recorded in Goebel work as well as in the Kohen-Rodriguez work. I think even the later make reference to Goebel who is, i think as for now, the first to have writen about it. The landing is then writen in both sources. I am going to explore more sources other than this two if I can. This cannot be taken as not likely when there are records that indicate them living there for over a year in 1540. Felix Riesenberg is definitely not a reliable sources as the same point to disclaim Kohen-Rodriguez work is a conjecture presented as fact. There is no clear work that indicated they didnt lived in the Malvines rather than the Isla de los Estados. There are just ideas not uniformely accepted by historians. Specially since Felix Riesenberg wasnt a historian himself but a marine writer. So his work shouldn't be taken above those of historians.

We should also bear in mind that the Magellan expedition is said to have gone by the islands (and maybe set foot on them) and I will explore more sources about it. 

According to some sources I checked, the name "Falklands" was given by Strong to the strait among the Islands and not really to them proper. However the name was later used to name the archipelago as a whole. The first map showing the Islands with that name was a Dutch map. [Caillet-Bois, Ricardo R. (1982). Una tierra argentina: Las Islas Malvinas. Buenos Aires: Academia Nacional de la Historia. p.22] and [ Lagos Carmona, Guillermo. Andrés Bello, ed. Los títulos históricos. p. 422.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, provide one RS that disputes Captain Strong landed on the islands.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The dispute is not on him being on the islands but of him being the first to set a foot in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But none of the others are undisputed, he is. So if you want to change it so "first undisputed" I would support that. Also its not just the British who say it [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

British and American historians do support the claim but Spanish and French, or South American historians do not support it. American support is mostly based on cultural affinity. So basically Strong claim is not undisputed but very much disputed, and is no near international accord among historians. So you must include Strong in the sentence "

1. It is riddled with errors and at least in the first edition the preparation for publication was so lackadaisical they even included photoshopped documents. In any case, we don't use it because it is an WP:SPS. If we were to allow it to be used, we would also have to allow Dr Graham Pascoe's rebuttal to be used. Your accusation is completely unfounded and should be withdrawn. You may wish to read WP:OWB, when an editor starts to bandy around accusations of bias and censorship within a few posts it's a sure sign they're not here to help write an encyclopedia.

2. Nope, you are completely wrong, it's solely down to the Soderini letter, I have copies of both the Spanish and English language texts. I translated the first edition from Spanish to English so I am very familiar with it.

3. It is highly unliklely that Camargo lived in the islands for the reasons already stated. There are no such records, Goebel speculates based on a fragment of a log. He ignores contrary evidence such as the reference to forests, which I note you've done and also finding reasons to discredit sources rather than consider them is the classic sign of a WP:SPA who is not interested in portraying a WP:NPOV.

4. Magellan went nowhere near the islands, the voyage is well documented by his chronicler Pigafetta from which the conclusion that he did not visit the islands is verifiable. Pigafetta describes meeting giants thought to be the Tehuelche Indians; the Falklands were uninhabited. Estêvão Gomes who deserted the expedition did not go anywhere near the islands, his log documents the return journey, and even stalwarts of the Argentine claim such as Adm Laurio H. Destefani reject such nonsense.

5. Kohen and Rodriguez are not historians, they are lawyers, you have just completely undermined your own argument. Felix Riesenberg is a perfectly valid source for the Camargo voyage. WCM_email 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

1. I am basing myself on the sources on other Wiki articles about the Islands that the English version is not taking into consideration. So it's not anything biased but is clearly a deliverate try to assert the claim of the Islands on Britain by manipulating history. As I said before John Strong being the First landing in the Islands is disputed. His landing is recognized but definitely disputed (and unlikely) to have been the first.

2. The claims are based on 1501, not on Sorderini letter of 1497-98 which is the one said to be a forgery. However I do believed that is highly unlikely that he went to the Malvines/Falklands. I just checked by myself now and the claim is based on him reaching as far as 52-50ºS in the voyages of Coehlo. However as I said there is no consensus as if Vespuccio was there in the voyage of 1503. However, most of the articles on other languages mentioned that Vespuccio may have or may have not visited the islands or at least recorded them. The english wiki is the only one I checked who doesnt even make any reference to the slight posibility of Vespuccio having recorded the islands.

3/4.Goebel is not the only source that talks about Camargo's voyage. Other authors have talked about it and have definitely come to a conclusion that Camargo probably lived in the Islands. There is abundant cartographt right after 1520 suggesting that the members of the expedition of Magellan had seen the islands. The most popular version attributes the discovery to Esteban Gómez, from the ship known as San Antón or San Antonio which name gave origin to the islands in the first spanish records. After the mutiny against Magellan on 1 november 1520, Gómez went back to spain through the guinea route. Another version gives the discovery to the ship Victoria sent by Magellan to look after the San Antón in Atlantic waters. On a side note, The Captain Pedro de Vera with the ship Anunciada deserted from the expedition of García Jofre de Loaisa right in the river Santa Cruz to navigate to the Moluccas though the good hope cape, but it was never known of them again. Some historians have believed that considering the route he took he may have seen the Malvines/Falklands. ​

Simón de Alcazaba y Sotomayor left spain with 2 ships on september 21, 1534. The San Pedro ship commanded by Rodrigo Martinez, split from the Madre de Dios by a storm around the lattitude of the Rio de la Plata and they were found again on 17 january 1535 in the Vigenes cape, a history narrated by Alonso Vehedor which mentions some Islands believed to be perhaps the Madives/Falklands. [Museo del Fin del Mundo - Biblioteca Virtual - en torno a la Tierra del Fuego]

However, the most important sources, give credit to the ship comanded by Fray Francisco de Ribera, Camargo's voyage. It is said to have lived in the island for a year in 1540.Your claim saying to have been in Isla de los Estados is unlikely as the cronicles mention describe the expedition to have sighted 8 to 9 islands, as well as several geographical descriptions that could only match the Malvines/Falklands [Caviglia, Sergio Esteban; en "Malvinas: Soberanía, Memoria y Justicia: 10 de junio de 1829" (Vol 1, Ed. Secretaría de Cultura del Ministerio de Educación, provincia de Chubut, Argentina, year 2012] and [Ernesto Basilisco: La armada del obispo de Plasencia y el descubrimiento de las Malvinas]. This is not only said by Goebel but by other authors: [Destefani, Laurio H. (1982). Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur ante el conflicto con Gran Bretaña. Buenos Aires: Edipress.]. I think these Historians are more reliable sources than Felix Risenberg.

John Strong landed in the Islands for refurbishing himself, but no formal possesion of the Islands took place, as Goebel says on page 137., which means it had no legal consecuences for britain. On the same note Gustafson on p.5 notes that in the following 76 year the islands remained permanently uninhabited and agrees with Goebel on the fact that Strong expedition had no legal advantages for England.[Gustafson, Lowell S. (1988). The Sovereignty Dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. New York: Oxford University Press.]

On top of this, on the expedition of magellan, acording to the maps made by Diego de Rivero (1529), some islands shown and named as "Sanson" support their discovery of the islands.

5 Felix Risenberg is not a valid source for the same reason you descredit Kohen and Rodriguez: none of them are Historians. So if you disregard Kohen-Rodriguez work for being lawyers, you have to discredit Risenberg work as well for being a marine and amateur writer. It makes him not a reliable source for Camargo's voyaye and thus cannot dispute the unlikelyness of his voyage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

We do not say he took formal possession, only that his was the first confirmed landing. You have failed to make your case, please drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

But you arent taking my considerations over Camargos voyage: However, the most important sources, give credit to the ship comanded by Fray Francisco de Ribera, Camargo's voyage. It is said to have lived in the island for a year in 1540.Your claim saying to have been in Isla de los Estados is unlikely as the cronicles mention describe the expedition to have sighted 8 to 9 islands, as well as several geographical descriptions that could only match the Malvines/Falklands [Caviglia, Sergio Esteban; en "Malvinas: Soberanía, Memoria y Justicia: 10 de junio de 1829" (Vol 1, Ed. Secretaría de Cultura del Ministerio de Educación, provincia de Chubut, Argentina, year 2012] and [Ernesto Basilisco: La armada del obispo de Plasencia y el descubrimiento de las Malvinas]. This is not only said by Goebel but by other authors: [Destefani, Laurio H. (1982). Malvinas, Georgias y Sandwich del Sur ante el conflicto con Gran Bretaña. Buenos Aires: Edipress.]. I think these Historians are more reliable sources than Felix Risenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejojojo6 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am, I am giving them the same credit as all of the other sources, hence our text. As to your opinion of what are more reliable sources, take it to wp:rsn and make a case there that source A is better than source B. This is my last reply as we are just going round in circles, you have not gained wP:consensus you should now drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Felix Riesenberg is acknowledged as a noted maritime historian. Per WP:SPS we do not use Kohen & Rodriguez because they are self-published and reference to the established academic literature shows the work to be riddled with errors. I merely pointed out the inconsistency in your approach in seeking to disqualify sources that contradict the flawed premise you wish to portray. WCM_email 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)