Lovely. The History of the Falkland Islands (which is riddled with arguments for various countries involved in the disputes and does not neutrally present the facts of the history) leads one to the 1833 invasion article, which is a biased misnomer in the first place since Aregentina had invaded and did not have a recognised claim on the islands (in fact, their claim had just been disputed by the United States who had bombarded the city after removing its entire population of German citizens from Argentina.

The Argentinians then decided to make the islands a penal colony, and sent a miltary group there to set it up. But the soldiers and prisoners mutinied and killed their chief officer in November. Another officer was dispatched who settled the mutiny and restored order, but in January was confronted with a superior force of the British Navy who ordered him to depart. Which he did.

Beyond this I can find extensive speculation but no factual support, especially for various myths regarding Antonio Rivero.

Geldermalsen has three content sentences. One of which is "Through Geldermalsen flows the river named the Linge, which provides water fun for many."

And here's a lovely contradiction...

Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, as likeable a Conquistadoré bastard if ever there were one, has parentage remarked as "Little is known about Cabrillo’s early years. Even his nationality is uncertain..." and "His date of birth and parentage are also unknown", but an expert is cited who thinks "he was born of poor parents 'around 1498 or 1500,' and then worked for his keep in the home of a prominent Seville merchant."

But just down the page the article states (with no reference) "Cabrillo, who had started life as a shipbuilder's boy, built and owned the flagship of his venture..."

And then there's the silliness. "Notably, Cabrillo appears to have missed the Golden Gate, San Francisco Bay, and Monterey Bay." In order to discover either of the latter, he would have needed to discover the first.

The first European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600. Although several English and Spanish historians maintain their own explorers discovered the islands earlier, some older maps, particularly Dutch ones, used the name "Sebald Islands", after de Weert. However, the islands appear on numerous Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s^{[citation needed]}.

This paragraph is a grand example an unsupported claim in Wikipedia, one which has quite literally caused wars and deaths. There is no evidence to support the final sentence. What is even more interesting is the history article, which has more extensive discussion regarding Ferdinand Magellan and others including an archipelago at the location of the Falklands in their charts.

The reason I mention this is I happen to have read rather a lot regarding Mr Magellan and his passage through the region, which he made along shore, within sight of land. I've also examined several copies of charts from the 1500s of this region, and none show the islands^[1][2]. It's not until Shouten's 1619 that I can first find the islands in their position.

The triumph of so fanatical a reformer as Christian brought about the fall of Catholicism, but the Catholics were still so strong in the council of state that Christian was forced to have recourse to a coup d'état, which he successfully accomplished by means of his German mercenaries (August 12, 1536), an absolutely inexcusable act of violence loudly blamed by Luther himself, and accompanied by the wholesale spoliation of the church. Christian's finances were certainly readjusted thereby, but the ultimate gainers by the confiscation were the nobles, and both education and morality suffered grievously in consequence.

Christian III of Denmark (and, by the way, of Norway...) Bias? what that?