This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Protected areas Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands 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 California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

What is the population of the islands, and who lives there? -- Beland 04:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Usually, there are around less than 10 people living there. They are marine biologists, for the most part. Gentgeen 16:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aren't all of the people there temporary researchers? There are no year'round rangers like Santa Barbara Island, for example, are there? BlankVerse ∅ 18:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are researchers (which range from 4 in the winter to 8 in the summer/spring) with an NGO (PRBO) that has a contract with Fish and Wildlife. The F&W refuge manager and refuge specialist are based out of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR and visit the islands from time to time. Sabine's Sunbird 5 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit with regard to inhabitation on the island. SEFI is inhabited all year by scientists. Sabine's Sunbird 15:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I had a math teacher back in the late 1970s-early 1980s who was a member of the California Air National Guard, who described doing practice bombing runs off the Farallons & how sometimes a (dummy) bomb would "skip" across the water and hit land. This is all from memory, though. -- Davecampbell 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm disappointed I can't see the islands on google earth :^( Funkyj 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) reply

You can see the islands, especially the Southeastern F.I. (SEFI), clearly on NASA World Wind. I added the coordinates of SEFI to the article to facilitate quick lookup (of course, NASA World Wind must be installed).-- Ratzer 21:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I have added a section about nuclear waste at the Farallons. SugakuKarasu 12:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Can someone add the correct pronunciation? Is it a long or short "a"?

This article may seriously under-represent the dangers of nuclear waste dumping in the area of the Farralon Islands based on a 25 February 2014 article by the Center for Investigative Reporting. The article regards the decades-long misrepresentations and denials by the US Navy about less serious nuclear decontamination problems on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay and at other California military installations. The article is "Treasure Island cleanup exposes Navy’s mishandling of its nuclear past" at http://cironline.org/reports/treasure-island-cleanup-exposes-navy%E2%80%99s-mishandling-its-nuclear-past-5986 . The article repeatedly speaks of nuclear waste from Treasure Island being dumped in the Farralon Islands area, (apparently including the scuttling of -- or pieces of -- radioactive ships -- OTHER than the US Independence which were present at the 1946 Operation Crossroads atomic test at Bikini Atoll -- though this is not clear from the article and the article is not about the scuttling of ships at the Farralon Islands.) Calling it "radioactive waste" would seem to be an understatement. Perhaps the article could be revisited given the literally hoards of documents unearthed from multiple sources by CIR -- and perhaps as a result of other inquiries and insights by other organizations or authors? Lethomme ( talk) 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• "From 1945 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste, despite nuclear dumping at sea being prohibited."

Dumping of nuclear waste at sea was not prohibited at all until the 1970s, and even today can technically be done in many situations with the right license from the EPA.

This is a distinction without a difference. Fukishima? Lethomme ( talk) 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) reply

• "An estimated count of 80,000 - 55 gallon barrels full of radioactive debris that carry a shelf life of 3 billion years,"

I don't know what "shelf life" is supposed to mean here. Is it some sort of reference to the half lives? This needs to be clarified or removed. "Shelf life" has no meaning in this context. -- 24.147.86.187 22:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, I basically re-wrote it. It seems like it was basically copied-and-pasted from another site anyway, and that site had really bad information on it (it was a sloppy compilation of information with a lot of innuendo thrown in). I think the truth of things is shocking enough as it is, written up clinically and without innuendo, so I have done so! -- 24.147.86.187 22:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Doesn't this information really belong in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary article? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Does it need a separate article for that? -- 24.147.86.187 ( talk) 03:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• The graphic showing locations of waste dumping sites does not match the actual locations given by lat and lon. Lat and lon plots to approximately 8 nm further west. This is important since it moves both locations off the continental shelf. That significantly changes the water depth of the sites from ~90 meters to ~900 meters for the eastern (larger) site. This, in turn, significantly changes the potential impact on fisheries and potential for getting entrained in the coastal currents. ThomasH1966 ( talk) 21:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Sorry if it's a stupid question! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.126.200 ( talk) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The net either drifted there from outside the sanctuary, or, more likely, the whale was entangled outside the sanctuary and carried the net there itself. 76.200.157.121 ( talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Commercial and sportfishing are legal in National Marine Sanctuaries - they're more like National Forests than National Parks (sorry for the US-centrism there.) Although given the net was already quite dilapidated when the whale became entangled, it probably did drift in from somewhere. Wevets ( talk) 05:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The Spanish Wikipedia article [1] provides Spanish (and in a few cases Russian) names for the islands, perhaps even for some rocks that have no English equivalents. Please help matching the names, so we can provide the Spanish names in this article also.

nearly certain matches

• Southeast Farallon Island = Farallón Sureste
• Sea Lion Rock = Piedra del León Marino
• Great Arch Rock = Farallón El Gran Arco
• Middle Farallon Island = Farallón de Enmedio
• North Farallon Island = Farallón del Norte
• Island of St. James = Isla St. James

possible matches

• Seal Rock = Piedra Bola
• Maintop Island = Farallón Santiago
• The Drunk Uncle Islets = Rocas de la Bahía
• Aulone Island = Isla Rezanov
• Sugarloaf Island = Piedra de Amolar

no matches (no English equivalents found or known)

• ? = Roca Kuskov (S)
• ? = Roca Kostromitinov (S)
• ? = Piedra Guadalupe (N)
• ? = Peñasco Quebrado (N)
• ? = Farallón Vizcaíno (N)

Ratzer ( talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It is stated that the islands are visible from the mainland on clear days. This is not quite true. Under certain, usually hazy, atmospheric conditions, the Farallones loom into view, but on perfectly clear days, they are hidden beyond the horizon line. I am not an authority, except insofar as I grew up in San Francisco, and had not given the matter any thought, until a science teacher enlightened my class. I remember proving the phenomenon to myself on subsequent jaunts around town. Dchiapello ( talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)dchiapello reply

That may be true from sea level, but I recall them being very visible from up the hills above Stinson Beach even on clear clear days. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

They're visible on clear days from the heights on the coast - the Presidio up above Baker Beach, from Fort Funston, and the Golden Gate Bridge itself. At least the peak of Southeast Farallon is visible from sea level on a clear day at Ocean Beach or Rodeo Beach on the other side of the Bridge. Wevets ( talk) 05:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The article on mirage states that the islands are not visible themselves, but just as a refraction, or mirage, in ideal atmospheric conditions. I think the 1st paragraph is misleading. Parababelico ( talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

That may be true at Sea-level,, but there are high hills on the coast and the islands, and things behind them, are certainly visible from the road to Stinson Beach. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I made an edit to this sentence correcting the implication that the view of the islands is just a mirage. I linked to a blog post that the autofilter flagged as a low-quality source — but it contains photographic evidence and unlike the other sources cited on this it is actually correct. Konahuanui ( talk) 08:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I couldn't find any information supporting this sentence in the given reference (epa1980): "The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination, the majority of which had decayed by 1980." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.238.100 ( talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The cited source says, "Typical low-level wastes disposed of at sea are paper towels, rags, broken glassware, clothing, and other laboratory paraphernalia ..." -- see page 7, under "What kind of material was dumped at these sites?" On page 2 of the same source, the second footnote says, "Mostly 55-gallon steel drums containing trace contamination on paper towels, rags, clothing, glassware and laboratory equipment. On that same page, the third footnote says (referring to the Curies dumped column) that "Much of this would be gone now by normal radioactive decay."

I will change "the majority of which" to "much", so as to be closer to the source. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 00:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The two houses should be to the left of the white rain cachment basin (as in "View of research station at Marine Terrace", or on Google Earth), not to the right. The original source is also reversed. Dstivers ( talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The edits by author Ggitzen of 20 August 2012 places Drake’s 1579 visit to islands at Three Arch Rocks, south of Nehalem Bay, Oregon, rather than the accepted place of the Farallon Islands:

“It was formerly believed that the first European to record the islands was the English privateer Sir Francis Drake, who landed on the islands on 24 July 1579. He named them the Islands of Saint James, a name that now applies to only one of the rocky islets of the North Farallones. However; the Farallons are made up of 4 islands while maps of the time reflect 5 or 6. The Three Arch Rocks National Marine Reserve and neighboring Twin Rocks lying off of Rockaway Beach, Oregon corresponded with Drakes 5 or 6 islands. Meares in 1788 identified the Islands of St. James (as named by Drake) as 4 while Vancouver in 1792 identified them as 3 in number. ^[1]”

This is a self-published work which does not present the accepted Drake course which includes Drakes Bay and the Farallon Islands. Fort Nehalem Publishing is the author’s press. www.whois.com lists www.fortnehalem.net with Garry Gitzen as Registrant, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact at ggitzen@nehalemtel.net.

Drake’s presence at the Farallon Islands has been formally recognized on two separate occasions by the National Park Service – in 1977 ^[2] and 2012}} ^{[3] [4] [5]} MikeVdP ( talk) 02:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Which are sea stacks ? Xb2u7Zjzc32 ( talk) 16:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Farallon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070419074236/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-show_geoid=Y&-tree_id=4001&-_caller=geoselect&-context=dt&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-redoLog=true&-transpose=N&-search_map_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=sel_00dec%7Cdw=0.382963345650033%7Cdh=0.22400013436671792%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-123.00994068709825%7Ccy=37.70074117751026%7Czl=5%7Cpz=5%7Cbo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319%7Cbl=362:393:358:357:356:355:354%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=15000US060750604002&-PANEL_ID=p_dt_geo_map&-_lang=en&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002000&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002001&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002002&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002999&-CONTEXT=dt&-format=&-search_results=14000US06075060400&-CHECK_SEARCH_RESULTS=N&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Farallon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121018195008/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-show_geoid=Y&-tree_id=4001&-_caller=geoselect&-context=dt&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-redoLog=true&-transpose=N&-search_map_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=sel_00dec%7Cdw=0.382963345650033%7Cdh=0.22400013436671792%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-123.00994068709825%7Ccy=37.70074117751026%7Czl=5%7Cpz=5%7Cbo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319%7Cbl=362:393:358:357:356:355:354%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=15000US060750604002&-PANEL_ID=p_dt_geo_map&-_lang=en&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002000&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002001&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002002&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002999&-CONTEXT=dt&-format=&-search_results=14000US06075060400&-CHECK_SEARCH_RESULTS=N&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-show_geoid=Y&-tree_id=4001&-_caller=geoselect&-context=dt&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-redoLog=true&-transpose=N&-search_map_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=sel_00dec%7Cdw=0.382963345650033%7Cdh=0.22400013436671792%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-123.00994068709825%7Ccy=37.70074117751026%7Czl=5%7Cpz=5%7Cbo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319%7Cbl=362:393:358:357:356:355:354%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=15000US060750604002&-PANEL_ID=p_dt_geo_map&-_lang=en&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002000&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002001&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002002&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002999&-CONTEXT=dt&-format=&-search_results=14000US06075060400&-CHECK_SEARCH_RESULTS=N&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farallon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102064455/http://factfinder.census.gov:80/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-show_geoid=Y&-tree_id=4001&-_caller=geoselect&-context=dt&-errMsg=&-all_geo_types=N&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_P001&-redoLog=true&-transpose=N&-search_map_config=%7Cb=50%7Cl=en%7Ct=4001%7Czf=0.0%7Cms=sel_00dec%7Cdw=0.382963345650033%7Cdh=0.22400013436671792%7Cdt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.EnglishMapExtent%7Cif=gif%7Ccx=-123.00994068709825%7Ccy=37.70074117751026%7Czl=5%7Cpz=5%7Cbo=318:317:316:314:313:323:319%7Cbl=362:393:358:357:356:355:354%7Cft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331%7Cfl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368%7Cg=15000US060750604002&-PANEL_ID=p_dt_geo_map&-_lang=en&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002000&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002001&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002002&-geo_id=100$10000US060750604002999&-CONTEXT=dt&-format=&-search_results=14000US06075060400&-CHECK_SEARCH_RESULTS=N&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Due to the fact that the best documented, and most logical explanation of the naming of the islands appears to be the account provided from the Viscaino expedition, I have listed this account as the article's explanation of the naming of the islands. All alternative explanations provided seemed to be either self conflicting, or else without high quality source material. 2601:642:C000:96E0:83D:7A60:423A:DEE5 ( talk) 23:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Farallon Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page219.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918043819/http://www.bloosee.com/explore/ to http://www.bloosee.com/explore/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The article is inconsistent and confusing about the islands' area. The infobox seems to say the island's total area is 41 acres, but later, in the body of the article, the area is said to be 0.16 square miles. {{ convert}} tells me that 0.16 sqmi is 100 acres, and 41 hectares.

Other areas are offered.

We need to sort this out. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC) reply

So which is it, Anacapa Island or the Farallon Islands that has the largest Western Gull colony. Both articles do not have a reference for their assertion.

2606:6000:FECD:1400:891F:D69E:6AAB:8673 ( talk) 01:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Nearly a deacade ago, On 19 January, 2011, Sanfranman59 added some information to the article, most of which seems useful. But it includes the claim that the Farallon Islands were built in 1539. I don't know when God built those islands, but I'm pretty sure it was before 1539.

Was that a prank? Shall I just delete it? NCdave ( talk) 19:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

File:Farallon nuclear waste dumping.png appears to contain errors. I have left details on the file talk page. According to the source, both sites were in deep water. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There seems to be some confusion about the North Farallons.

There is the North Farallon -- the largest at about 125 m long.

Then, to the south is the Island of St. James. It's about 50 m in diameter. The article has a bigger number.

Immediately to the east of the Island of St. James is the other larger rock in the set. It is also about 50 m across.

Then, a bit to the south are the four or so other smaller rocks.

I've added the coord for the three bigger islands. Can someone reference the three measurements?

Thanks! MikeVdP ( talk) 03:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello to all page authors. I arrived here searching for historical and other information about the Farallons. In general I enjoy and appreciate the article but it bothers me that "discovery" continues to be attributed to spanish mariners and that the article appears to have a purely colonizer-centric frame of reference. I imagine (and the article itself asserts) that the the local indigenous community was aware of the islands long before the European colonizers encountered them, and yet "discovery" continues to be attributed to European colonial explorers ("after the 1542 discovery of the islands", "In the years following the discovery of the islands"). 24.5.160.72 ( talk) 05:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Mnmhn, I see your point, but I think "discovery" is still pretty common to describe this sort of event. That may be changing, I don't know. You could change it to "European discovery" and I wouldn't object to that.

I wouldn't do it myself, because it's extra verbiage and it doesn't make it any clearer I don't think. Clarity and conciseness it what we want. If any non-trivial number of readers are reading ""after the 1542 discovery of the islands" and are confused ("Huh? Discovered? But it says they were known in prehistoric times... wha?") -- genuinely, and not for effect -- then that'd be different. I doubt it, except maybe for some people whose general knowledge of history and historical terminology is so low that they will be stumbling over many basic concepts in this article and others, and there's a limit to how much we can help readers in that position.

But per WP:SOFIXIT, change it if you like. Herostratus ( talk) 07:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree with 24.5.160.72, the Native American residents of San Francisco were clearly aware of the islands since they are visible from land in the area. I edited the history section to make it clear it’s not just a mirage. I’m

reworking the rest of that section to take out claims that they were discovered by westerners. Konahuanui ( talk) 08:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply