Talk:Second voyage of HMS Beagle

Initial paragraph

This is an excellent article, and I'm glad that the original contributor split it out of the "Beagle" article.

However, I feel that the lead paragraph is not a synopsis of the article. The lead paragraph should stand alone. It is supposed to start wtih a sentence that includes the title (in bold) as the subject, if at all possible. I made an attempt to capture the essence ohte article. Perhaps we can try again?

In my opinion, a new reader need to get the following facts:

1) this is the voyage chronicled by Darwin.

2) The voyage took five years (1831-1836)

3) the voyage went around the world.

Everthing else can be left to the body of the article.

-Arch dude 05:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

An image of an organism would be good, perhaps something from the Galapagos? Richard001 08:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of events in South America

Currently re-reading Janet Browne's Biography Volume 1 - Voyaging but noticed that there are significantly differences in the chronology of events between 1832- 1834 comparing the biog (Pimlico paperback 2006 pp 263-266) and this article. Some events separated in time have become compressed together or reversed in sequence. For example, The book has the sequence as follows - Rejoining Beagle at Montevideo; expedition to R. Uruguay; replacement of Earle by Martens; shooting and eating the Rhea; the purchase of Adventure; Darwin becoming ill. I have not checked The Voyages of the Beagle yet but has anyone found this also to be the case. If its agreed that the chronology is out I am prepared to help with an edit basically involving some swapping around of paragraphs and filling in a few gaps to provide the continuity without adding to length but would prefer to do this in agreement and colaboration with those who have been involved with the writing of this article.Tmol42 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The Voyage of the Beagle was reorganised out of time sequence to keep geographical areas together, so you'd have to check the dates rather than relying on the sequence in that book. The sequence and dates in this article come from Desmond & Moore's Darwin – the purchase of Adventure; p. 137, Darwin falling ill with fever p. 142, Rejoining Beagle at Montevideo; p. 143, the expedition to Mercedes near the R. Uruguay; meeting Martens who'd replaced Earle and shooting and eating the Rhea; all on p. 144. Note that Darwin had a more serious illness later: see West coast of South America. I'll try to have a look at Browne as well, and will clarify the point about Martens. .. dave souza, talk 08:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I've edited "bolas" for "boleadoras" which you reverted. I live in Argentina and the correct term for the weapon used by Indians and later "Gauchos" is "Boleadoras". "Bolas" might even has a negative meaning in Argentinean's use of spanish. Thanks, Esteban --Estebanglas (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not one that I added, but it appears accurate. Darwin himself used the term bolas,[1] and you'll note that Boleadoras is a redirect to the bolas article so perhaps this is something you could raise on the talk page for that article, which gives both as alternative terms. Possibly the word has changed a bit in meaning since 1833, but both seem to be valid terms and we should really stick to Darwin's usage. . dave souza, talk 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

reference 8

If my poor english let me understand right, in the reference 8 there are no evidence for the sentence "22 september ... they saw fossilised bones of extinct gigantic mammals on the beach at Punta Alta, in strata suggesting quiet tidal deposits rather than a catastrophe". I think "tidal deposit" are how the strata have been formed and "rather than a catastrophe" is how the mammals haven't gone estincted for darwin. Darwin the 22th september 1822 seem to be in buenos aires according to The Voyage of the Beagle--87.11.58.172 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, some of the points were taken from Desmond & Moore and Browne, pages as reference 9. The date doesn't show in reference 8 (an introduction to Beagle field notebook 1.10), though it indicates that it's between 6 September and 17 October that "Darwin first experienced the thrill, which he remembered for the rest of his life, of unearthing with his own hands the bones of fossil mammals". The date is shown in Beagle field Notebook EH1.10 page 62b which gives it as 22 September 1832, and pages 64b to 65b show the words quoted in reference 8 (the introduction) –

in the conglom teeth & thigh bone

Proceeding to the NW. —
there is a horizontal bed of earth, containing much fewer shells, but armadillo — this is horizontal
but widens as gradually. hence

I think conglomerate with broken shells was deposited by the action of tides earth quietly

The introduction then says "Here was a very significant discovery. Darwin is wondering if the conglomerate containing sea shells and bones has been formed in an estuary environment and is not a relic of some catastrophe." At that time many geologists thought that all fossils of extinct species had been buried in a series of catastrophic floods, but to Darwin this showed that these fossils of extinct mammals had been gently covered by mud washed over them by tides, supporting the "uniformitarian" idea of Lyell that landscapes and fossils could be explained by the continued action of processes we still see today. Hope that helps, will think about improving the paragraph. .. dave souza, talk 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

surgeon an ass

From the voyage section: "Darwin privately thought the surgeon an ass whose old-fashioned approach predated Lyell's concepts". That doesn't even make sense grammatically. What's interesting that this wasn't added as a result of vandalism, but during rewriting somewhere in 2008. Can anybody familiar with Darwin's work explain if this is what he really thought about the surgeon?  Grue  15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably, Darwin did indeed think the surgeon was an ass, but my paraphrasing of Browne's description went a bit astray. Hope the revisions are an improvement, if it's too much of a culture shock or could be clarified, your suggestions based on the cited sources will be most welcome. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Darwin's paradox

I'm trying to track down a phrase people keep attributing to Darwin, even in scientific literature. I've read his book, The structure and function of coral reefs, and specifically the parts where he postulates that coral reefs thrive and expand in some places but not others due to oceanic conditions. What I have not run into is the phrase "oasis in the desert", or even an allusion to that. The only mentioning of that I've seen is from another scientist Francis Rougerie, who accounts Darwin's observations and uses the terms quasi-desert and oasis-atolls, and may have also coined "Darwin's paradox." If anyone can shed some more light on it I'd appreciate the help. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 05:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's not in CD's book The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. From a search of DarwinOnline, the only reference Darwin made to oases during the voyage was in his ornithological notes and refers to isolated green patches on the Galapagos islands where "clouds fertilize the soil; & it then produces a green & tolerably luxuriant vegetation. In such favourable spots, & under so genial a climate, I expected to have found swarms of various insects; to my surprise, these were scarce to a degree which I never remember to have observed in any other such country. Probably these green Oases, bordered by arid land, & placed in the midst of the sea, are effectually excluded from receiving any migratory colonists". So, Francis Rougerie seems to have been making this stuff up, and we should be careful not to give him undue weight... dave souza, talk 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Accomodation or accommodation?

Regarding this edit, The following sources support the word in the quote being "accommodation":

• https://books.google.com/books?id=VOMyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169
• https://books.google.com/books?id=tby1F6Fb01QC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32
• http://www.turtlereader.com/authors/charles-darwin/the-life-and-letters-of-charles-darwin-day-61-of-188/
• https://books.google.com/books?id=aeh7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25
• http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Life_and_Letters_of_Charles_Darwin_v1_1000009372/207
• https://books.google.com/books?id=9rc6AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14

--Dalek Supreme X (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

However, the source cited is "Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 106 — Peacock, George to Darwin, C. R., (26? Aug 1831)". which is current scholarship about the original letter, and significant as a source making the specific point that "In the event, CD's appointment was not official. Although CD lists himself on the title page of Journal of researches as `Naturalist to the Beagle' and in the Zoology as `Naturalist to the Expedition' this is not to be understood as an official title conferred by the Admiralty. ... CD's situation was that of guest of Captain FitzRoy, who sought a `well-educated and scientific person' as a companion".
Since it isn't the modern spelling, I've added [sic] for the benefit of our readers. You're proposing various edited collections of letters published at various dates to change a spelling used by Peacock and shown by the Darwin Correspondence Project. Several of the sources you propose are from various editions of the Life and Letters as edited by Francis Darwin or Nora Barlow, two use Darwin and Henslow: The growth of an idea] as a source, the book by Andrew Norman doesn't seem to include this specific point. Why change the source? . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The single source you are relying upon has an obvious typo in it. The actual text of the letter may be found in The life and letters of Charles Darwin, edited by his son, Francis Darwin, published in 1898.[2] Please undo your edit. It is not supported by any source other than a single webpage with a typo on the page. --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin (1985). The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: 1821-1836. Cambridge University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-521-25587-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help): the spelling also appears on p. 140 in CD's letter to Susan Darwin. The Francis Darwin version was heavily edited, hence Nora Barlow's later edition. If it were a typo, the Darwin Correspondence Project could have shown an online correction: it's more likely that this is an archaic spelling. . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE includes "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so unless the spelling matters for some reason, it should possibly be corrected regardless of who wrote what. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, but goes against the opening point "Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. This is referred to as the principle of minimal change. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets", and the closing para: "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings, including capitalization". Is it really so important to correct Peacock's 1831 spelling to meet modern standards? The meaning of the word remains clear. . . dave souza, talk 08:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that accommodation was commonly spelled "accomodation" in 1831? Also, on what basis did you decide that certain sources are "significant as a source" while others should be discarded as being "heavily edited"? This looks like a case where reliable sources disagree, and I am trying to understand on what basis you determined which sources to follow and which sources to ignore. BTW, does the actual Peacock letter still exist? If not, what is the earliest source that quotes it? Dalek Supreme X (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As the Correspondence Vol. 1 p. 15 states: "The objective of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin is to provide definitive transcripts of all the available Darwin letters". For that specific letter, the Physical description is "ALS 6pp". See their Editorial policy and practice section 5 for explanation of the initials: A – autograph (½ or more of text in sender’s hand), L – letter, S – signed by sender. "Physical descriptions are given for all original manuscripts located by the editors. If an original has not been found but a photocopy or some other facsimile of it is known, the physical description is followed by ‘(photocopy)", the description indicates that they worked from the original, not a copy. Note the second paragraph of that policy, "After initial transcription, each letter is closely checked against the original or a facsimile four times, to give as high a degree of accuracy as possible. Original spellings (and mis-spellings!) are retained." Hence what looks like cases of the same mis-spelling, by Peacock and CD: I've not found evidence that this is an archaism.
As Freeman notes, in Life and Letters Darwin's autobiography was edited by Francis Darwin to avoid giving offence to Emma: it's not clear how much this applied to the letters. Nora Barlow's 1957 edition restored omissions, "correcting many trivial errors and alterations". The letters she included were hitherto unpublished,[3] but she was one of the editors in a publication you've suggested.
In summary, the Correspondence is a good modern source, and in this case worked from the original letter. . . dave souza, talk 14:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That convinces me. Thanks! --Dalek Supreme X (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, it's a stylistic point as to whether we correct the spelling, but in the circumstances I think adding [sic] is the best option.
I'd not read all the sources you've found, a secondhand copy of Andrew Norman's book was available from a charity bookseller so I'm having a look at it now. He makes some interesting points, but unlike the historians we've cited he's worked solely from the 1945 second edition of The Voyage of the Beagle. On p. 37 he quotes the book on how food supply in nature "on an average, remains constant; yet the tendency in every animal to increase by propagation is geometrical", and says "in his own mind, the seeds of the great theory for which he was to become famous were beginning to germinate." Norman seems to have been caught out by second edition revisions adding hints of evolutionary thoughts which weren't in the original journal.
Still, his book may be worth citing with caution, and it's interesting to read a different perspective. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Course of voyage could use an image, or a more prominant explination in opening section

I haven't read the whole article yet but I just wanted to know if it circumvented the globe or did a loop. sure I should read the whole article, but me and millions like me don't and just want the info faster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.20.131 (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvement, some problems, potential FAC

I have worked on this article for a long time; I fixed the WP:MOS, improved readability, reviewed sources and so on. I have read it entirely and saw a few problems that need to be fixed. First, some citations seem to be missing. The second paragraph in the lead section about the reason for the voyage is unsourced, but so is the body of the article in the "Aims of the expedition"-section. Could someone knowledgable about this fix it? The main contributors to this article have been inactive for a long time. Also, the sentence just before the "Return"-section ("A plaque now commemorates this arrival point in Falmouth.") is unsourced.

Another thing that should be added is an image of Charles Darwin. The issue is that the most appropriate image of him (timewise) is a portrait painted right after the voyage. Should his image be far down the article or higher up? If so, I will probably add this image: [4]. It is the most time-appropriate image.

Once these things have been addressed, I believe this article could be a potential featured article candidate. (Also, I am not sure if this is allowed, but because most active contributors are working on other articles, I will tag them in hopes of seeing this. Samsara, dave souza, Tmol42.) Wretchskull (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 1. "The second paragraph in the lead section about the reason for the voyage is unsourced" – the lead doesn't cover the reason, the paragraph briefly outlines the route and what they did. Would think that an uncontroversial statement, which wouldn't normally be sourced in the lead. Have refined the sentence about timing: whatever was planned, Henslow's initial letter offering a place said the voyage would take 2 yrs., shown in body text with citation. . dave souza, talk 12:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• 2. "but so is the body of the article in the "Aims of the expedition"-section" – Only first paragraph in that section lacks a source, and it summarises sourced statements in the subsequent paragraphs. However, I think it can usefully be expanded a little, probably citing Browne as a source. Will work on that. dave souza, talk 12:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Done now, citing Browne & Neve, and Taylor. . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry, I think I didn't phrase my comment properly. I meant that the lead paragraph has an unsourced body in the "Aims of the expedition"-section; I know that adding references in the lead shouldn't happen if they exist in the body. I'd also like this article to become featured, so I think we need more than one source per paragraph in some chunkier places. On another note, I will also expand the preparations-section. Many featured articles about expeditions have very well detailed preparations about finance, crew, ship, etc (some examples: Jeannette expedition, Shackleton-Rowett Expedition, Discovery Expedition, etc.). Wretchskull (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That looks helpful, you can discuss paragraphs on this talk page where you can't find additional sources, and we'll have a look. Finance is slightly complex, as the Admiralty fell out with FitzRoy and he funded a lot himself. FitzRoy's Narrative provides a huge amount of detail, some of which is also in secondary sources, but obviously we have to be concise. . . dave souza, talk 14:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• 3. Have added a source for the Falmouth plaque, and moved the mention to the next section as the plaque marks where CD caught the coach, rather than where the Beagle arrived. The photo of the building with the plaque has location information, and it's marked on Google maps. . .dave souza, talk 17:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4. The portrait you suggest is sourced to Origins, Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin, which is a 1977 book "about the emergence of our species and its possible future", not an ideal source for "late 1830s". An alternative version of the same portrait comes from History of Ecological Sciences, Part 37: Charles Darwin's Voyage on the Beagle - Egerton - 2010 - The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, which titles the portrait "Charles Darwin, 1840, by George Richmond. Portrait at Darwin Museum, Down House, Downe, UK." A better source for the date, it's a matter of personal taste which image looks nicer. That source could also be useful for adding more detail about scientific aspects of the voyage.
  The article already includes Earle's 1832 caricature of the crew, Sotheby's described it as "one of the earliest depictions of Darwin, the only image of him on the Beagle, and an exceptionally rare image of him at work as a naturalist". In addition to the image we've got, it could work to use a cropped detail showing just CD [and most of the figure to his left] as a full-length portrait. I've tried that, and get an image 291 × 518 pixels. Want me to upload it? . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Never seen that caricature before, very interesting! We should definitely upload these images. Apart from that, I have read the Darwin Online text of the voyage for more time than I'd like to know and looks like all notes are perfectly matched, so we're done with that. Wretchskull (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Think that works reasonably well, will leave you to add the portrait from around 1840. . . dave souza, talk 18:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Great. After looking around some featured articles of expeditions (such as the Jeannette expedition) I saw that they usually have images of the personnel and a list of crew members, but because prose writing is favoured over lists, we should at least probably have an image of FitzRoy in the "Context and Preparations" section and an image of Darwin at the "Offer of place to Darwin" section. What do you think? Wretchskull (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Agree about the FitzRoy portrait, so added that. My initial feeling was that the Darwin portrait should really be under "Return" or "Expert publications on Darwin's collections", but there are already illustrations nearby. For visual layout of the article your suggestion makes more sense, so have tried it out, with the timing shown in the caption. Move them about if you think the positioning can be improved. Thanks for putting this forward, . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Review prior to FAC

@Dave souza: After requesting mentorship in the WP:FAC talk page, it turns out that the article is B-class (erroneously changed to A-class) and requires some more work. Citation format & linking is the main issue. I'll try to get that under control and perhaps start a peer-review to see if something else is lacking. The technicality of the subject is my primary concern. There contain jargon-littered and technical/unclear sentences in this article that I was too afraid to copyedit without altering its context, even after thoroughly reading its corresponding reference. Wretchskull (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Thanks for the work you're doing on this! Don't restrain your copyediting too much, at least changes highlight a need for clarification. If in doubt, raise questions on this talk page. Due to pressures I've limited time at the moment, but will try to help out, and others have also contributed to the article. . . dave souza, talk 10:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Unused von Wartenberg reference

This reference didn't seem to be in use, so I've moved it here until usage is clarified, . . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• von Wartenberg, Henry (2010), Charles Darwin al sur del sur: Detrás de sus huellas dos siglos después, Buenos Aires{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Human trafficking

@Dave souza: Regarding this revert, I read the cited source before making this edit. From what I read, the transport back to England seemed to be involuntary. Do you see any sources that say it was voluntary, or are you objecting to the term "trafficking"? -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. WCM_email 09:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I'm a bit demoralized by that. WP:POINT is talking about an attempt to "try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently" and says "editors engaging in 'POINTy' behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree". Is there a rule you think I'm trying to discredit, and do you think that I don't actually agree with my own edit? -- Beland (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles can always be improved, so I've revised the text a bit and cited Browne as well as Fitzroy. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beland:, none of the sources I've seen refer to the transport back to England as human trafficking; you may feel that education and training to be a missionary amounts to "the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others", but the term is clearly offtopic and anachronistic. The issue is fully covered by hostage, with the proviso that, as Browne points out, the human occupants of a country were thought to be perfectly legitimate objects for Englishmen to collect and study. FitzRoy's actions were not unlawful, and can be seen in the context of [recent] impressment, when kidnapping was not uncommon. You are, of course, welcome to propose other academic sources. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: The occupants of North America certainly did not consider themselves legitimate "objects" of study for Europeans to take as they wish. It's true that some Europeans did believe that, but we don't particularly want a Eurocentric bias in the encyclopedia. It sounds like the four men were being exploited to work as missionaries, so the term "human trafficking" does seem to apply, though it's not the stereotype of the victim of human trafficking. I don't see how it's off-topic, as the passage is discussing the events that led to the capture of these people, but it may be anachronistic. In any event, since you object to the term and it's arguably not squarely apt, I've just added "involuntarily" instead, to clarify that "brought" is not an action taken upon the request of or entirely for the benefit of these people.

The new wording "he got occupants of a canoe to put another on the ship" is rather unclear. Does this mean that FitzRoy got the occupants of another canoe put on the ship, or got another canoe put on the ship? The phrase "when this failed" is also unclear. Does this mean that the hostages escaped, or that he kept the hostages but failed to get the ship back? Was one of the hostages exchanged for Jemmy Button? Were all four of the hostages taken to England bought for buttons? -- Beland (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beland:, North America's a bit offtopic, as CD and HMS Beagle never went there, but around that time the occupants were somewhat preoccupied by others trying to take their land. It wasn't "four men", you've got a link to FitzRoy's full description, and for a historian's assessment see Janet Browne (23 February 2010). Charles Darwin: Voyaging: Volume 1 of a biography. Random House. pp. 147–148. ISBN 978-1-4070-5320-2.. For another expert assessment see Richard Keynes (17 April 2003). Fossils, Finches, and Fuegians: Darwin's Adventures and Discoveries on the Beagle. Oxford University Press. pp. 27–30. ISBN 978-0-19-977467-8. Read these, and I'm sure you'll be able to get to grips with the topic and clarify the brief outline in this article, taking care to avoid original research. There's a little more detail at HMS Beagle#First voyage (1826–1830) (with an inaccuracy), Robert FitzRoy#Early life and career (needs sources and some editing), Jemmy Button and Yaghan people#European contact. It would be good to get these improved and coordinated. . . dave souza, talk 19:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Er, sorry, I meant to write "South America". But "North America" was not what you were saying was off-topic, you were saying that "human trafficking" was off-topic, and I still don't see how that adds up, unless by "off topic" you mean "not an apt description of what happened". (Which is not how I use the term.)

Given that you added the new text, I was assuming that you had already read the sources and know the answers to the clarifying questions that I asked? It does not seem fair to ask me to spend hours to go to the library to fix the vagueness in the text that you just wrote. -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Click on the links, google books should let you read the relevant pages online, and FitzRoy's account is on DarwinOnline. I've said that "human trafficking" is offtopic as it's a modern term for "the trade of humans for the purpose of forced labour, sexual slavery, or commercial sexual exploitation for the trafficker or others." None of which applies to FitzRoy's "cultural chauvinism" and "elevated, if patronising, aims." To quote Browne. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I would describe that as being anachronistic or inaccurate, not off-topic. An example of being off-topic would be content that talks about, say, the general society of the Yaghan people - something not attempting to describe the events of the first Beagle voyage. Since you've decided not to clarify your writing, I've tagged it as unclear and will fix it when I have some time. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

You're demoralised? Seriously I doubt it Beland, your edit using an inappropriate modern term was off topic and you were disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Wikipedia doesn't exist to right WP:GREATWRONGS, it's an encyclopedia and we are guided for content by what reliable sources say. I have reverted your changes as they weren't about improving the article but again disrupting it to make a point. If you feel the need to tilt at windmills, I suggest you find somewhere else to do it. WCM_email 07:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fair to criticize "human trafficking" as inaccurate or taking a point of view. I think it's unfair to say it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, especially in the sense of WP:POINT.

Part of what you reverted was a {{where}} tag on the painting of the Beagle of Tierra del Fuego, uploaded by Dave souza. Tierra del Fuego is a giant area. I was wondering if there is any information about specifically where this is supposed to represent, or if for example "Tierra del Fuego" actually refers to Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego. I don't know why you would consider use of that tag to be disruptive, as it's used on over 1900 articles. -- Beland (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To add, no it's not unfair to expect you to spend time in the library actually looking at sources, it's what you're expected to do if you're writing on wikipedia. If you're not prepared to actually research articles you have no business editing them. WCM_email 07:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to read sources when I have time; I just didn't find "go read it yourself" as a friendly answer to a question like, "when you wrote 'another' did you mean 'another person' or 'another canoe'?" -- Beland (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)