Talk:James Cook

Recent changes to the lead

Hello all

I have made another attempt to rewrite the lead more concisely and make it a more accurate summary of the article. In particular:

1) I have cut the repetitious mentions of Hawaii. We state in the first paragraph that Cook was the first known European to visit Hawaii. There is no need to say it again in the last paragraph. See WP:REDUNDANCY

2) I have restored the mention of his charting the coastlines of Newfoundland. According to the article, it was this and his astronomical observations there that brought him to the attention of the Royal Society. It is therefore worth mentioning in the lead.

3) I have added that Cook made contact with various indigenous peoples and claimed various lands for Britain. This is covered in the article and it is odd that it was not previously mentioned in the lead.

4) I have removed the links to New Zealand and Hawaii. These are well known lands and there is no need for them to be linked. See WP:OVERLINK.

@Jp2207 We have previously discussed this so please let me know if you have any concerns over my changes.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin, thanks for the copy editing. My only concern is with your point 4.

A) I looked at WP:OVERLINKING. This (sensibly) advises against "excessive" overlinking. It also implies that, notwithstanding general advice to not link to countries & geographical features, it may be acceptable to link to "a term [which is] particularly relevant to the context in the article". It also states "The lead of an article usually has a greater density of links than later parts of the article."

B) We always need to check our "demographic biases" on what is "well known"

C) I also took a look at the leads of other articles on notable explorers.

Matthew Flinders links to Australia

Vasco da Gama links to India

Henry Hudson links to Canada

John Cabot links to North America

Thus, I appeal to you that there is strong case to link to NZ & Hawaii in the lead here. Cook is hugely significant in the history of both places and neither can be assumed to be familiar to a general reader. The link to "Australia" is trickier, but here I felt linking to "New Holland" as a historical concept aids understanding of the history and the context of Cook's achievement. In any case, the linking was surely not "excessive".

I look forward to your counter arguments. Jp2207 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Links are not only there to explain which place/person/thing you are referring to – they are also to make it easy for the reader to go there quickly and easily to check something unexplained (probably for perfectly good reasons) in the article. With the link, it is really a couple of mouse clicks to visit the link and then come back to the article. In short, we are making it easy for the encyclopaedia user. I think the principle of over-linking really applies to repeatedly linking the same word throughout the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Policy on overlinking is pretty clear:

In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:

• Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)
• Geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America)
• Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia)
• Languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)
• Nationalities, ethnicities or identities (e.g., British, Japanese, Turkish, African American, Nigerian)
• Religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)

The problem, as I see it, is to discourage overlinking creep and the best way to do this is to follow policy on overlinking. If we link New Zealand and Hawaii, on what basis can we ask other editors not to start linking other common words in the lead which have separate articles such as: Britain, British, Pacific, Atlantic, Southern Ocean, cicumnavigation, merchant navy, teenager, island, cartographer, indigenous peoples, surveying etc.? Indeed, I was sorely tempted to delink "Captain" which is a very commonly used word. The purpose of links is to make it easier to understand the article. If there really are people out there who have never heard of Hawaii and New Zealand and are incapable of googling it, I don't think all the links in the world will help them understand the article. Perhaps an early link to a map of the world or to a detailed map of Cook's voyages would be more helpful than the links you propose? I certainly would find them more helpful. Perhaps linking common words is an inferior way of addressing the problem you imagine. Maybe a link to the simple English article on James Cook would be better for people who have never heard of Hawaii? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

After re-reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I concede on the points that I made. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I do appreciate the collaboration. I just want wikipedia to get better - and for me to be a better editor!

“If there really are people out there who have never heard of Hawaii and New Zealand, and are incapable of googling it...”

Yet I confess I find that statement astonishing as, imo, it runs counter to wikipedia’s raison d’etre. “Having heard of” something is not the same as “having knowledge or understanding of” something. For the curious, in an ideal world, I want that the solution to such ignorance is not to “google it” but to consult a reliable wikipedia! Isn’t that the whole point of wikilinks?

That said, I get the guidance in MOS:OL, esp the link creep tendency. So I agree that linking to "Captain" is perhaps MOS:OL. But I fear that your stance in this instance is going too far the other way. I suggest that linking to geographic features and countries - even "well known" is fine (and useful!) if judiciously and sparingly used, depending on the context.

I’d very much like your thoughts on the leads of those other articles I cited - my point C above? Do you assess those as overlinked? How about London - a wikipedia Good article - where the first sentence links to both England and the United Kingdom.

Thanks again. Jp2207 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for your cooperative approach. I haven't read the other articles you mention but it sounds like they don't follow policy. These aren't articles I am particularly interested in and they aren't on my watch list, but if you wish to take the matter up on the talk pages of these articles please be my guest. There might also be a project page which discusses the issue of linking in articles so might be able to contribute to that. In the meantime, I will unlink "Captain" because it is even less useful than the links to New Zealand and Hawaii. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This has been very enlightening to me to understand when to link/not link and also how to strike a balance between overlinking and underlinking. Allow me to share my further thoughts.

The criteria is not whether an item/word/concept is “well-known”  but rather whether the reader will improve their “understanding of the topic at hand” by following the proposed link. I note, for example, that today’s featured article “The Sun” immediately and correctly links to the article “star”. Thus “London” pointing to “England” and the “United Kingdom” is valid even though these are well-known concepts. Likewise, it is valid that “Geography of Ireland” (a featured article, no less) points to “Ireland” and the “Atlantic Ocean”.

So to answer your question:

“on what basis can we ask other editors not to start linking other common words in the lead which have separate articles such as: Britain, British, Pacific, Atlantic, Southern Ocean, circumnavigation, merchant navy, teenager, island, cartographer, indigenous peoples, surveying etc”

I thus concede that, for names of oceans, New Zealand, Hawaiian Islands there is reason to not link in an article about “James Cook” the man, and to leave these to the distinct articles on his three voyages (which rightly do link to these!).

“Circumnavigation, merchant navy, island, indigenous peoples” - these do not deepen knowledge of the man and wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Yet:

Britain / British - there is an argument for linking to Kingdom_of_Great_Britain, the 18th century historical entity, as this may deepen an understanding of the ethnicity of the man, the political body whose interests he represented, and the legacy of his achievements in our modern world. Who would deny linking “Julius Caesar” to “Roman”?

Cartographer - maybe reasonable to link to “cartography”, a discipline of the man?

Appreciate any comments. Jp2207 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that policy states (see above) that common words and the names of well known cities, countries religions, nationalities, geographic features etc generally should not be linked. If some are linked in other articles it is contrary to policy. If these are rated as good articles of featured articles then probably the links were added after that status was granted and the status hasn't been reviewed. Apparently there is some tool which automatically links every word which has an article and unfortunately there are many editors who do nothing but add every link it can find to articles. As for the other Cook articles, I will have another look at them but my memory is that it was you who insisted that some of these links be added to them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it not possible that policy as stated "should generally not be linked" means "usually don't link but may need to use judgement as there could be circumstances where it is ok"? It doesn't read "do not link".

Also, your view on this policy begs a question for me: Under what circumstances would you regard it as valid to link to a major geographical feature or country article?

And are you saying that policy would dictate that an article on "The Sun" should not link to "star"? Jp2207 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons for arguing that New Zealnd and Hawaii should not be linked in the lead of this article. If other editors wish to express an opinion about linking in this article then they are free to do so and if a consensus emerges for linking these words in this article then that can override general policy. Discussions about other articles and linking policy in general should be conducted on the Talk pages of those articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin I already conceded on the use of NZ and Hawaii links here. I am only trying to understand the policy/guidance so I can help make wikipedia better . But this isn't the forum for that so I'll go elsewhere.Thanks Jp2207 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for my brusque tone above. I did find the discussion interesting and it helped me clarify my views on linking. I would be happy to engage in further discussion on the other Cook articles which I hope to revise somewhat in the coming weeks. However, I do think that the Talk page of the policy guideline on linking (or perhaps the project page) is the best place to raise general questions on linking policy. The general rule, as I understand it, is that policy should be followed unless there is a local consensus against it on a particular page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jp2207 You seem determined to squeeze in links to the articles on Cook's three voyages in the lead. The problem is that this makes the wording of the lead more awkward and puts too much emphasis on certain aspects of these voyages. It also isn't necessary because this article covers the three voyages and readers need only click the link to the discussion of these voyages in more detail. There they will find links to the main articles if they want even more detail. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems YOU are determined to be rude rather than collaborative. (Do you see how taking an accusatory tone isn't helpful?).

Getting back to the merits, the linking issue and (my) wording are entirely different issues. By all means edit my wording. But it seems bonkers to me that an article on James Cook does not have links to his three voyages in the lead, ok maybe not in the first paragraph but certainly somewhere. The average reader only reads the lead. Jp2207 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have added a link to the First Voyage article where such a link naturally belongs. From there any interested readers can easily find further links to the other two voyages. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

AI adjustments

Increasingly important to use proper names as subjects in sentences to avoid AI mistakes “He died of tuberculosis…” correct, in referring to Clerke, in the text, nonetheless gets picked up as the cause of James Cook’s death in the AI summary. Veruca89 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia want to give any help to various AI projects? If they use Wikipedia to produce nonsense, surely people will consult this encyclopaedia, rather than something generated by an obviously faulty alternative. Is there a case for Wikipedia to complain about those who generate these summaries? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I have posed a question at [1] on what Wikipedia's response is to being misrepresented by AI. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to @ThoughtIdRetired's view: we cant be doing things because AI is crappy. But this nevertheless flags something else. I have a feeling this paragraph barely belongs in this article, not in such detail, since it is referring to the voyage, not James Cook. Or maybe it should be reduced to a single concise sentence? -see WP:COATRACK Jp2207 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph seems to me to be standard Wikipedia aftermath content. It answers the reader's likely questions: what happened after Cook's death, who took over, was the scientific work completed. I don't see that it could be reasonably trimmed – even the cause of death is relevant to the whole subject of exploration, as it gives a reminder of the risks of disease from spending your time within the close confines of one of these ships. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Error in Legacy

Under the heading "Legacy" is this sentence: "The provenance of the collection shows that the objects remained in the hands of Cook's widow Elizabeth Cook, and her descendants, until 1886." As both this article and the entry for Elizabeth Cook state, she had no descendents and outlived all her children. I don't know what this sentence should say, but as written, it is clearly incorrect. Dkelber (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Change "descendants" to "heirs"? Errantios (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I will rewrite the whole section which is lifted word for word from the Australia Museum website. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I have added content about the Göttingen collection. I have rewritten and summarised the content about the Australian Museum collection which contained too much tangential detail which can be found in the main article. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow, quite the response time! I don't know anything about the subject. Just an observant reader who goes down rabbit holes when reading interesting articles. Thanks for the correction! Dkelber (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Museum information, both on site and on their website, can be of a highly variable quality – to the extent that I wonder if they fit the standards for a WP:RS. The example often given is of the Battle of Culloden visitor information centre misidentifying the origins of the Jacobite cavalry: "... unevidenced allegation and imprecision in describing Culloden; to take one other example, the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) at the Visitor Centre still describe Elcho’s and Balmerino’s Life Guards, Bagot’s Hussars, and Strathallan’s Perthshire Horse as ‘Highland Horse’, though there was nothing ‘Highland’ about any of them." (Pittock, Murray. Culloden: Great Battles (p. 135). OUP Oxford.) Larger museums are not immune to this. The Imperial War Museum, Historic England and the National Maritime Museum all accept, with thanks, evidenced corrections to the captioning of their online images. One has to remember that some of this information is written to a deadline by someone with limited subject knowledge whose expertise is more on things like marketing and getting a good flow of people through a popular exhibition. Conversely, some museums have very high quality information: but how do we spot the difference? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Inflation

@Remsense: ‬Can you please show me the bit or bits of the template docs that note {{Inflation}} cannot compute the equivalent value of a £ in 1768 for 2023? Because I see an example for 1209 ({{Inflation|UK|1|1209|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}), so would like to see what you’re seeing. Elrondil (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/doc says this template defaults to calculating the inflation of Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich, the US-GDP or UK-GDP indexes should be used, which calculate inflation based on the gross domestic product (GDP) for the United States and United Kingdom, respectively. Turns out it doesn't make too much of a difference, oops, but I've gone ahead and made the fix bundled in with some others. Remsense ‥ 论 13:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention Cook was rich, and to Cook, the subject of the article, the gratuity wasn't a capital nor government expense. That’s bound to also be true for most readers. But you’re right … the numbers are fairly close. Elrondil (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose the figure seemed closer to the characterization of "wealthy expenditure" than that of "workers' rent", but it seems fairly borderline. Remsense ‥ 论 14:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Name of "controversy" section

Seems like "Controversy" by itself is a bit lazy: it does not tell readers what the section is about. What if there were 2 sections about 2 different controversies? Better is a title describing that topic, which revolves around colonialism & impact with indigenous peoples. Title should be more neutral an not lead readers in a particular direction. See essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles. "Colonialism" is brief and to the point, or "Controversy related to colonialism" or "Impact on indigenous peoples" or similar? Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind a more descriptive heading but I'm not sure Colonialism is the right one because the issues discussed aren't just colonialism but also violent encounters and anniversary celebrations and protests. Other related issues might also arise. There is a background to this because of the tortuous discussions over how this issue is covered in the lead, resulting in the current wording which I find too convoluted. My understanding is that the Cook protests are more to do with the concept of "Decolonisation" rather than colonialism per se. In other words, even though Cook did not colonise anything and did not even advocate the colonisation of the lands he visited, some see the removal or modification of monuments to him as part of a process of decolonisation of culture. I also think the focus of this section should be on the public debate and protests which exploded during the Cook 250 anniversary. A section on Colonialism will inevitably evolve into a discussion of academic debates on Cook and Colonialism. This is fine, but not what I think this section should be focused on. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The protests are not part of Cooks' story. Anything we include about them needs to be clearly separated from content about Cook. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC) himself

(1) I think you might find it difficult to find a concise alternative section title that is indisputably neutral.
(2) The word "controversy" means that people have different views, strongly held, which are expressed in public (see OED defn. 2a and 2b). Surely that is the situation here, so the word is an accurate description.
(3) If there were to be more than one controversy over Cook's life, the section titles would be "Controversy over [name of issue 1]" and "Controversy over [name of issue 2]". ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

And, off topic, I think the balance of the section could be improved by citing more sources which think that treating Cook as the focus of blame for colonialism is "absurd, anachronistic and unhistorical" (McLynn, Frank. Captain Cook: Master of the Seas (p. 417). Yale University Press.) In writing a section on such things, it is probably easier to find those proposing that Cook was controversial, whilst those who defend are less obvious and, chronologically, always come later as there is nothing for contradict before the original accusations are made. Additionally, the original complainants are more likely to be reported in the press whilst their opponents may tend to be more academic in nature. I wonder if that has happened here. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

FRS post-nominal

Per MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:LEADCLUTTER , the post-nominal FRS cannot be in very first sentence: When the subject of an article has received honours or appointments issued either by the subject's state of citizenship or residence, or by a widely recognized organization that reliable sources regularly associate with the subject, post-nominal letters may be included in any part of the article other than the lead sentence.

Apparently there was an RfC on this issue in 2023: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#Proposal:_Moving_post-nominals_from_lead_sentences_to_article_bodies

Any suggestions where it should go? Or can it be simply removed from 1st sentence because it is already in two places (besides the 1st sentence):

1. "FRS" is in the top-right in the InfoBox.
2. Section on 2nd voyage has the honor spelled out: His fame extended beyond the Admiralty; he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society and awarded the...

Noleander (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Mention "collier" preference?

Cook used collier-style ships in many (all?) of his voyages. I recall reading that he preferred that style and even specified that design for his 2nd and/or 3rd voyage. That may be worth a mention in the article.

E.g. Here is a BBC source: Cook's ship, the Endeavour, was a bluff-bowed Whitby collier chosen for her strength, shallow draught, and storage capacity. Although the ship was to change, the type did not; the Resolution of the second and third voyages was of the same build, and even came from the same shipyard as the Endeavour, to whose qualities, wrote Cook, 'those on board owe their Preservation. Hence I was enabled to prosecute Discoveries in those Seas so much longer than any other Man ever did or could do.' from https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/captaincook_01.shtml

Does anyone have thoughts on adding info about his preference for colliers? Noleander (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit specialised for a general article on Cook, but I think it's worth a footnote. Do you have access to Peter Moore's Endeavour? From memory, he discusses Cook and colliers. I would prefer a citation to an academic study rather than a BBC article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link. You can't borrow the book, but if you do a search for "collier" it will preview the relevant text and pages. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Dipping into Moore's book, I am a little concerned about his understanding of ship-building. For instance, on page 55, he talks about construction with "properly seasoned timber": ships of this time were built from green timber as the shipwrights' tools available could not readily cut seasoned oak. Also of concern, on the same page, is his description of carvel construction, with the framework being built first, followed by the planking. This is not necessarily the method used in 1764, an older sequence may well have been used: some framing, followed by some planking, then another phase of framing, etc. An author who boldly states the modern carvel sequence seems to illustrate a lack of knowledge. (Even the mid-19th century English collier, the wreck SL4 discussed by Jonathan Adams in his A Maritime Archaeology of Ships, has many floating futtocks, where the frame elements are not fastened to each other but only to the planking, so suggesting the older construction sequence. Adams concludes that SL4, a collier built in a small yard of the northeast of England, used the same construction sequence, with great similarities with, for instance, Mary Rose. It is unlikely that the builders of Endeavour did anything different.) That makes me hesitant to believe Moore on other points made by this author. Does he have any relevant qualifications? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 17:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Issues to research in answer to this:

Surely not Cook’s choice for first voyage.

Cost (low)

Robust construction

Large cargo capacity for size

Ready availability (there were lots of them)

Shallow draft for tonnage

I may be able to deal with these points, with references, later today.

I would be hesitant about using the BBC as the sole source on this aspect.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 06:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired I think our comments crossed here. The Peter Moore book is worth looking at. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have other sources that cover the same subject, but I am about 5 hours drive away from them right now. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Cook was not involved in the choice of Endeavour:
The choice of ship had been made before he [Cook] was appointed to the captaincy, despite the certainty with which some writers insist that Cook ‘must have’ had a major hand in her selection. The explanation goes on to discuss a sloop (HMS Tryal) was a likely candidate, but she would not be ready for sea before June. HMS Rose, an "elderly frigate" was the next ship considered, but could not carry sufficient stores for a 3 year voyage. The Admiralty then turned to consideration of an east-coast collier or ‘cat’ and drew up a shortlist of three, finally opting for the Earl of Pembroke, a four-year-old Whitby collier, which the Admiralty bought for £2,800. McLynn, Frank. Captain Cook: Master of the Seas (p. 144 84). Yale University Press.
This also shows that a Whitby collier was not the first choice by the Admiralty.
More to go on this. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed info. I've been reading sources and I cannot find any statement that Cook chose a collier-style for any of his ships. Several sources say that Cook admired colliers and thought they were outstanding for his kind of voyages. Others in the admiralty must have shared that view, since they (not Cook) choose the Endeavor for 1st voyage. Even for the 2nd and 3rd voyages I have not yet found a source that says Cook selected ships because they were collier-style. I'll keep looking, In any case, the article should include facts from sources that describe Cook's admiration for collier-style. Noleander (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

HMS Solebay

The footnote on HMS Solebay points to the Three Decks website for information. This site is, at best, ambiguous, but more likely is a serious misread of Winfield, Rif; Winfield, Rif (2014) [2007]. British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1714 - 1792 (Reprinted 2014 ed.). Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 9781-844157006..

Winfield states that Solebay was built in Plymouth Dockyard and commissioned July 1742. She was then captured by the French 6 August 1744, used by the French as Le Solebay. She was cut out by a British privateer 20 Apr 1746 and sold back to the RN, being recommissioned in August 1746.

I cannot trace where the Three Decks site gets its information on Cook being the master of Solebay, but this is covered by McLynn's book (already a ref in the article). However, Cook's time as master there appears to have been brief. Also, a close reading of McLynn for his time on Eagle is not a good match for the current article content. A quick look at Beaglehole suggests this part of the article ("Start of Royal Navy Career") could do with a rewrite. In neither case is the article content specifically wrong, as judged against the sources. It is more a matter of what is judged important. Both biographies give some emphasis to Cook's first time in battle, for instance. Instead, the article gives the names of the captains that Cook served under, which is probably a detail that could be omitted. Beaglehole also mentions Cook taking command of a prize. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

[Simultaneous post ... typed as same time as above; not a reply] Regarding sentence: He then joined the sixth-rate frigate HMS Solebay as master under Captain Robert Craig. The cited source for that is http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ccsu62.htm which is probably not super reliable; but it was already in the article. I did not supply that source. We can search for a better source.

Unfortunately, WP does not have an article for HMS Solebay (1742). Yet curious readers will want details, so I added an informative footnote that provides more details about that ship: https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=20077 This latter source is not used to for WP:V validation of body text; it is an efn footnote, essentially an "external link" for curious readers. Yes, the source is sketchy ... I'm planning on looking for a better source to replace it. I'm sure the UK Navy has published details on it somewhere. Noleander (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Winfield (as above) is generally the best source on RN ships. The Three Decks site misreads it. Biographies give more emphasis to Cooke's time on other ships and give, at first sight, slightly different chronologies on promotion to bo'sun and master from the article. We both agree that Three Decks is not good enough for the finished product, I think. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] This book talks about Cook on the Solebay. Not sure if it is reliable or not:

title={Captain Cook's War \& Peace: The Royal Navy Years, 1755--1768},

author={Robson, J.},

isbn={9781783469284},

url={https://books.google.com/books?id=OWKCAwAAQBAJ},

year={2009},

publisher={Pen \& Sword Books}

This book is (was) already used in this article as a source for other sentences (that is, I did not introduce the Robson source into the article).Noleander (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I'll use Winfield source for facts/details about Solebay construction/lifespan; and Robson source for the fact Cook was master on it. I have not read Winfield source yet. Noleander (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Robson is certainly an expert. A more traditional reliable source is Beaglehole, whose biography has full text online including page numbers, which is really convenient: [2] [3] are the chapters dealing with the time in question. Beaglehole says in the first of these chapters "On 30 June he was discharged from the Eagle and entered as master in the Solebay, a 24-gun frigate, Captain Robert Craig." and in the second "The Solebay's [...] base was at Leith on the Firth of Forth; there she had just returned [..] when Cook joined her on 30 July 1757." His time on the ship ended at some point between 7 September and 17 September 1757. Beaglehole does not have anything very exciting to report about this time; unfortunately Cook's original logs, while extant, are not available digitally (they are part of this: [4]). —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's excellent information. Noleander (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

First Voyage Ship and crew

@Noleander @ThoughtIdRetired I think this is too much detail for a high level article on Cook. I would cut it to two sentences and not have it as a separate sub-section. This sort of detail is best covered in the article on The Endeavour and First Voyage of James Cook. See WP:SUMMARY STYLE. It's also repetitive: we already know who James Cook is and Banks and Solander are mentioned later in the article when they become prominent in the narrative. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm in the middle of working on it right now. I copied some sentences from the other article and I'm trimming them down now. Noleander (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

OK. I'll let you go for it, and if you like you can drop a message here whenever you would like feedback. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Examination for Lieutenant

The biographies of Cook generally miss the fact that he was obliged to take the examination for Lieutenant before he could be appointed to command Endeavour. (The number of guns on Endeavour required the captain to be a lieutenant, a Master was sufficient to command the schooner/brig Grenville.) This is explained in a a short note in DAVID, ANDREW C.F.; and JONES, COLIN (1 January 1999). "Documents". The Mariner's Mirror. 85 (3): 335–337. doi:10.1080/00253359.1999.10656754. ISSN 0025-3359.. This source makes clear why the other two lieutenants on the Endeavour were also newly appointed: if not, they would have been senior to Cook. This might explain the lack of talent in Hicks, since he had passed for lieutenant in 1760 and was serving only as an acting lieutenant until his appointment to Endeavour. The source also provides the length of time that Cook had served, and in what capacity, in the ships he had been on. It is slightly cumbersome in its presentation, but says:

Cook's lieutenant examination 6 May 1768: sea experience

Ship	Capacity	time
Eagle	Able	0.1.1.2
Eagle	Master's mate	0.7.0.3
Eagle	Master's mate	1.4.3.2
Solebay	Master	0.1.1.5
Pembroke	Master	1.11.3.3
Northumberland	Master	3.1.3.0
Grenville schooner	Master	3.12.3.5
	total sea time	11.2.0.6

The time is denoted as years, months, weeks and days. Either the examiners slightly messed up their arithmetic, or they have a way of converting weeks into months when totalling that I cannot discern.

I feel the article should mention that he had to take his examination for lieutenant – just because a number of biographers have missed this pivotal point in a naval officer's career is no reason for this article to make the same omission. We also see the very short time periods over which Cook as an able seaman and, later, the master on Solebay. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like an important fact to include. The article already has the sentence (at start of Endeavour voyage) On 25 May 1768, Cook, at age 39, was promoted to lieutenant to grant him sufficient status to take the command of the Endeavour, so that is a good start. That sentence has 3 sources already; I can look and see if they or other sources (e.g. the ones you name above) contain more explicit language about the why promotion was required before he could take command. If the sources justify it, I'll add a few words into that sentence. Or, of course, you are welcome to add some words yourself. Also, footnotes (using the "efn" template) are available for interesting details whose importance does not rise to the level of inclusion in the body text. Noleander (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired - In the soruce Kippis A Narrative of Captain Cook's Voyages Round the World: With ... Kippis writes:

Accordingly, Mr. Cook was appointed to the command of the expedition by the lords of the Admiralty; and, on this occasion, he was promoted to the rank of a lieutenant in the royal navy, his commission bearing date on the 25th of May, 1768. When the appointment had taken place, the first object was to provide a vessel adapted to the purposes of the voyage. This business was committed to Sir Hugh Palliser; who took Lieutenant Cook to his assistance, and they examined together a great number of the ships which then lay in the river Thames. At length they fixed upon one, of three hundred and seventy tons, to which was given the name of the Endeavour.

That suggests that the promotion was before the Endeavour was selected; thus the promotion was related to a class or size of ship (weight/ number of crew / number of guns); not specifically related the Endeavour. Do your sources indicate that Kippis was wrong? Maybe Kippis has the order reversed (ship selected before promotion)? Noleander (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think Kippis is wrong. Other sources confirm that Endeavor was selected as a ship before the promotion happened. E.g. Source Hough, page 39. What is not yet clear is if the ship was selected by Cook or not. Two possible sequences:

1. The Admiralty decided to promote Cook; then Cook selected the ship; then Cook was promoted.
2. The Admiralty selected the ship; then decided to promote Cook;  ; then Cook was promoted. Noleander (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

   Here is a source that asserts that the Endeavour was selected by the Admiralty before Cook was selected to lead the voyage:

   As April 1768 began, James Cook was still expecting to take the brig Grenville back to Newfoundland to undertake another season’s survey. However, things were happening that would have a major effect on Cook’s life. The Royal Society and the Admiralty had been in talks concerning organising an expedition to the South Pacific to observe the Transit of Venus, expected in 1769. The Navy Board had been instructed to find a suitable vessel for the expedition, and by the end of March, Adam Hayes, the master shipwright at Deptford, reported back recommending a collier named Earl of Pembroke. She was purchased, renamed Endeavour, and registered as a Bark. Despite what some authors have written, neither James Cook nor Hugh Palliser was party to choosing her. Cook was still preoccupied with Grenville when vessels were being inspected in late March, and Palliser was still governor of Newfoundland. Cook would have certainly applauded the choice of the Navy Board and the Deptford Dockyard but he played no role in the decision.

   The source is the Captain Cook Society, which is not super reliable, but what they say above sounds consistent and reasonable. I think many other sources have repeated the myth that Cook himself (and/or Hugh Pallister) selected the ship, when in fact it was selected by the Admiralty's shipwright Adam Hayes. Noleander (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't tried it, the reference at the top of this section is available to all (from the "documents" link) and that explains what rank you needed to be to command Endeavour, based on how many guns she carried. I am not sure, but I think sources like Winfield also explain who can command what rate of ship. If not, it is another source that I have. But the Mariners Mirror is a top quality peer-reviewed journal, so that should be sufficient. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ... good sources! Noleander (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Canada: various points

• The article currently says: ...and was responsible for mapping much of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River during the siege, yet Beaglehole comments, for instance: "Frequently enough too much credit has been given to Cook for an operation in which all masters took part as a matter of course, and all had a hand in this." (pg 44) Similarly we find the cautionary statement of McLynn "The legend that Cook in person personally surveyed the St Lawrence river that winter and made an accurate chart of its entire length is pure fantasy..." (pg 33) I think the article needs to avoid overstating Cook's role – he was just one of several involved in this task.

• Influence of Samuel Holland in teaching Cook some of the land surveyor's skills is completely omitted from the article. Beaglehole makes several mentions of Holland (see the index for the full list), as does McLynn. The latter sums up the relationship with "For Cook this opened up the vista of a really accurate survey of coastlines." (pg 34) The biography of one of the great surveyors and hydrographers must surely make some attempt at discussing the origins of his skills.

• For those readers who come to this article in an attempt to understand the controversies over Cook's later career, his involvement (even as a bystander) to the "inglorious service" (Beaglehole, pg 34) in which Pembroke was engaged after the capture of Louisburg, destroying French settlements along the coast of the Gulf of St Lawrence, is relevant. Something else to have in mind is that Wolfe, the leader of the British expedition, was notorious for brutality in suppressing the Jacobite rebellion. McLynn states "The six-week siege [of Louisburg] had turned out triumphantly for Amherst, but its conduct was marred by systematic atrocities and the deliberate massacring of all Indians in revenge for the defeat at Fort William Henry the year before. Both Amherst and Wolfe were hard, ruthless men, habitually addicted to war crimes and even genocide." (pg 28) I would hope this would set any accusations about Cook's later behaviour in context – but that, of course, is for the reader to form their own opinions on.

• There is no mention of the November 1767 grounding of the Grenville off the Nore lighthouse (at the mouth of the Thames) in a severe storm, with the ship having to be abandoned, though reboarded and refloated two days later. This would be a notable incident in any biography of the career of a naval officer. Beaglehole page 93 is the source, with an interesting quote from Cook's journal to explain the seamanship skills used to try and avert disaster.

ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to make appropriate changes. This isn't meant to be a hagiography. We need to reflect the consensus of scholarship. (However, McLynn's scholarship and judgements have been questioned and it would be safer to corroborate anything he says with other reliable sources.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Noted, but I am a little short of time to do a complete job at present, and the article is in the midst of another editor making a number of revisions. Re Mclynn: that is why I have also cited Beaglehole, who discusses Samuel Holland extensively. I have read elsewhere (and am trying to discover the source) that Cook's surveying methods in Canada involved using land surveying techniques to establish some features, so that adds logic to the relevance of Holland. On the questionably severe actions under Wolfe's command, (after the fall of Louisburg) we have "Once again, such behaviour was surprisingly similar to the tactics used after Culloden, and Wolfe would not have been shocked by having to employ them." (Royle, Trevor. Culloden: Scotland's Last Battle and the Forging of the British Empire (p. 233)) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Another source for questioning the current article content ...and was responsible for mapping much of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River during the siege is:
"Some fanciful claims have been made for Cook’s further surveys during the winter of 1758–9 and early spring; even that he, alone, conducted a full survey, with soundings, of the 400-mile length of river to Quebec." Hough, Richard. Captain James Cook (p. 43).

I note that Hough is another biographer who gives significant mention of Cook's encounter with Samuel Holland and the subsequent collaboration of the two in making various maps and charts. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I changed article to read ... [Cook] helped map much of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River during the siege, thus allowing ....

PS: I see the Hough line "Some fanciful claims have been ... on page 19, not 43. Can you double check the page number? Noleander (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Page numbering. I have a lot of books in electronic format. Despite what the publishers of these books tell you, unless it is a simple pdf, the page numbering of the electronic version often does not fit the paper one. (I can prove that it does in some of the cases where I have both an electronic and paper copy.) I actually had a long explanation of all this, yesterday, from someone who works in formatting books for publishing, but that does not really help solve the problem here. Going to google books seems to be the only occasional solution, but is not always available.
I have put some content in the article about Samuel Holland (surveyor) as the three biographies of Cook to which I have immediate access all discuss in some detail this influence on Cook's life . This naturally flows into the general narrative of Cook's surveying preparatory to the attack on Quebec, so some changes were required there.
I will also put in something about the grounding and near wreck of Grenville.
That leaves outstanding the question of the treatment of French settlements and their inhabitants after the end of the Siege of Louisbourg (1758). It is certainly mentioned by two biographers (Beaglehole and McLynn).
I note that unlike the rest of the article, these parts of Cook's life are not covered in more detail elsewhere in Wikipedia. So this is the one-time chance to get significant facts about this aspect into Wikipedia. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

As long as the sources cover it and it's interesting to readers, it's okay in the encyclopedia. At some point, however, the Canada section will get to the point that it's inappropriately large relative to the other sections in this article. A very common thing to happen in articles.

When it happens, a new article should be created, the Canada section moves into the new article, and we leave a one or two paragraph summary here in this article. See WP:SUMMARY. I'm not saying we're at that point yet... but it may happen soon. Noleander (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Source for 2nd voyage direction eastward

It might be useful to add an explanation of why the 2nd voyage went eastward. Presumably, this was to take advantage of Roaring Forties winds (and related currents) in or near the Southern Ocean. Specifically: contrasted with the 1st voyage which went westward (and more-or-less used the Trade Winds). Anyone have a source that mentions why 2nd voyage went eastward and/or relates it to the winds & currents? If sources exist, could go into the body, but maybe better stuck in a footnote. Of course, if the sources don't mention it, it cannot go in the article. Noleander (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Best source that I can find for you on this is
"Since 1616, all VOC ships had been instructed to sail south from the Cape of Good Hope and catch the strong westerly winds, the Roaring Forties, between latitudes 40° S and 50° S. This ensured a faster and safer route to the Indies, as it expedited the sailing time by several months and circumvented Portuguese territory in Asia. The new nautical highway, the so-called Brouwer Route, was first encountered by Hendrik Brouwer in 1610–11 and made mandatory five years later. After Dutch ships had caught the Roaring Forties in their sails, they followed this nautical passage 1,000 miles (7,407 km) east and then turned north with the Southeast Trade Winds that would lead them directly into the Sunda Strait." van Duivenvoorde, Wendy. Dutch East India Company Shipbuilding: The Archaeological Study of Batavia and Other Seventeenth-Century VOC Ships (Ed Rachal Foundation Nautical Archaeology Series) (p. 21). Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-62349-179-6

Whilst it is not specifically about Cook, it probably covers the most common voyages to the East Indies (to use a colonial term). Those who followed the Brouwer Route are largely responsible for discovering Australia in the first place, as, without a way of determining longitude, if you turned too late, you were likely to hit Australia, as happened to Batavia and several other ships. There is no way that Cook would have been unaware of the Brouwer route – it was fundamental to navigating in this area. All Cook did was not turn north, and perhaps head a bit more south.

Wendy van Duivenvoorde's book does say a little more on the subject (my quote, above, is already pushing the boundaries in terms of quantity), mentioning the names of other European ships lost on the coast of Australia by using this route. The first of these was actually an English ship, Trial, Australia's oldest European shipwreck, which happened in 1622.

It may help to quote Van Duivenvoorde's sources, in case any are easier for you to find:
Sigmond and Zuiderbaan, Dutch Discoveries of Australia, 31–35.
Bruijn, Gaastra, and Schöffer, Dutch-Asiatic Shipping in the 17th and 18th Centuries, vol. 2, nos. 0143.3, 0144.2; and Sigmond and Zuiderbaan, Dutch Discoveries of Australia, 32.
I have not tried to access either, so no promises on how useful they may be. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The article Brouwer Route may help with sources. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'll add a sentence about the wind into the section on the 2nd voyage. Not yet sure if it should be in the body text or in a footnote. If the source is not about Cook and does not mention Cook, that may tilt the choice towards a footnote. Sometimes that choice becomes clearer after one enters the new text/fact into the article and views it. Noleander (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Disputed Account of Initial Violence in Hawaii

Request for balance and clarification regarding who struck first during Cook's death at Kealakekua Bay

The current "Death" section lacks context regarding who initiated the violence on 14 February 1779. While it notes that tensions had escalated and that Cook attempted to kidnap Kalaniʻōpuʻu in retaliation for a stolen cutter, it omits any reference to scholarly debates or Hawaiian oral traditions that suggest Cook or his men may have struck first.

A number of historians and sources indicate that violence may have been initiated by Cook’s party. For example: In Captive Paradise: A History of Hawaii, historian James L. Haley writes that Cook “struck a chief with the flat of his sword” just before being attacked (Haley 2014, p. 80).

Patrick Vinton Kirch, in A Shark Going Inland Is My Chief, notes that “[Cook] struck the chief Kanaʻina with the flat of his sword,” which precipitated the violence (Kirch, 2012).

Hawaiian oral histories (see Gananath Obeyesekere’s The Apotheosis of Captain Cook) also depict Cook as acting aggressively before being killed.

These perspectives are missing from the article, which instead presents a narrative focused primarily on the European viewpoint. Given Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and balanced historical representation, this seems to be an important omission.

Suggested Edits:

Add sentence to paragraph describing the confrontation:

"Some accounts, including Hawaiian oral histories and modern scholarly interpretations, indicate that Cook may have initiated the violence by striking a chief—Kalaimanokahoʻowaha (also called Kanaʻina)—with the flat of his sword."

Citations to include:

Haley, James L. Captive Paradise: A History of Hawaii, St. Martin’s Press, 2014.

Kirch, Patrick Vinton. A Shark Going Inland Is My Chief, University of California Press, 2012.

Obeyesekere, Gananath. The Apotheosis of Captain Cook, Princeton University Press, 1992.

Would appreciate feedback on adding this context, or assistance with sourcing language that adheres to article tone. This addition would help reflect a more nuanced view of Cook’s death, consistent with WP:NPOV. FlyingNoodles (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The accounts of Cook's death are contradictory on most points. The entire section needs a rewrite, particularly the very dubious claim that the identity of the persons who struck the first blows are known (the citations for which are a highly selective mix of dubious primary sources and very old secondary sources). But if you would like to give actual page references for the sources you mention then a suitable neutrally worded sentence can be added. I would prefer something like "accounts of Cook's death vary with some sources suggesting this and others that etc." I would also avoid using wording such as "X initiated the violence" which is a value judgement best avoided. You might also like to raise a discussion on the main article Death of James Cook which is even worse than this one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will raise a discussion on the main article as well. I am unfamiliar with dubious primary sources... I'm wondering if simply providing a direct quote from the ships surgeon would be the best way to stay neutral but provide more context. Something like

News reached the Hawaiians that high-ranking Hawaiian chief Kalimu had been shot (on the other side of the bay) whilst trying to break through a British blockade – this exacerbated the already tense situation.

"David Samwell, surgeon of the Discovery describes what happened next:

“While the king was in this situation, a chief, well known to us, of the name of Coho (Koho), was observed lurking near, with an iron dagger, partly concealed under his cloke, seemingly, with the intention of stabbing Captain Cook, or the lieutenant of marines. The latter proposed to fire at him, but Captain Cook would not permit it. Coho (Koho) closing upon them, obliged the officer to strike him with his piece, which made him retire. Another Indian laid hold of the serjeant's musket, and endeavoured to wrench it from him, but was prevented by the lieutenant's making a blow at him.”

The account continues:

“A man threw a stone at [Cook]; which he returned with a discharge of small shot… he expostulated strongly with the most forward of the crowd… One man was observed, behind a double canoe, in the action of darting his spear at Captain Cook, who was forced to fire at him in his own defence, but happened to kill another close to him…”

(Source: A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, 1784, Vol. 3, pp. 13–14.)"

At this point, the situation had devolved beyond recovery. Cook, realizing that taking the king was no longer feasible without a large loss of life, ordered a retreat and signaled the boats to approach for evacuation. He and his men became separated during the confusion, and the marines were forced into the water under pressure from the crowd. With the boats struggling to respond amid miscommunication and a barrage of stones, Cook found himself isolated on the shoreline.

As he attempted to make his way to the pinnace, shielding himself from thrown rocks, Cook was struck from behind and fell. He was then fatally stabbed as he lay in the surf.[178][179][180][ah] His body was dragged away by Hawaiian warriors and later dismembered in accordance with local ritual practices.[183]

However, this is much more of an extensive edit than instructed and may be better suited for the main article.

I will consider a more concise edit this week. Thank you for your time 183.88.229.89 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

For context, Google Earth shows that the shoreline of Kealakekua Bay near the Cook monument (presumably little altered since that time) is strewn with loose rocks. Anybody trying to get to a boat quickly would have struggled and very likely fallen, and rocks as heavy as anybody could throw were everywhere at hand. A spear would have been convenient, a musket perhaps more of a burden than usable as a weapon. But Cook would have been an easy target for thrown rocks. Errantios (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Longitude

I note that the part of the article that discussed longitude is now gone, due to the lack of a citation. As a key historical navigational topic, the subject has a place in an article about a major figure in the history of navigation. As a possible source for this, there is a book by Dava Sobel called (quite simply) Longitude. I don't have a copy to hand right now, but I'm pretty sure it covers the subject in every possible way. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the section on longitude was too long and technical. We just need one sentence along the lines of "Cook gathered accurate longitude measurements during his first voyage, with the help of astronomer Charles Green, using the newly published Nautical Almanac tables and the lunar distance method." Or something similar using the source you suggest. The following paragraph about chronometers is also needs a trim. I would suggest: On his second voyage, Cook used the K1 chronometer made by Larcum Kendall, which was the shape of a large pocket watch, 5 inches (13 cm) in diameter. It was a copy of the H4 clock made by John Harrison; the first to keep accurate time at sea when used on the ship Deptford's journey to Jamaica in 1761–62. But then we really need a sentence of the importance of this: what did Cook do with this chronometer that advanced science? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

But you clearly agree that we need some coverage of longitude. Otherwise it would be a bit like the article on John Dalton not covering the basics of Atomic theory (which it does).

It is not so much what Cook did with a chronometer that advanced science, more what he did to demonstrate a method of navigation that substantially improved safety at sea. This benefitted a very large number of people.
Once the article is all put together, it will need a careful audit to check that a reader with no knowledge of (pre-satellite) navigation can grasp the importance of the lunar distance method and the chronometer for finding out where you are. We need to work out if that is easily done by the reader from the article's links, or whether it needs a very brief explanation of what the problem is. Many articles do this, often in a "historical context" section. Sometimes links are so detailed that I guess a reader would give up reading them before learning the headline points of the subject. Those are the situations where those headline points need to be stated without relying on links. (Or you can rewrite the article you link to.) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired - I apologize if my edits were a bit too aggressive when I deleted that text about the longitude. I absolutely agree that lay readers (with virtually no knowledge of seafaring) should be informed of why the longitude problem was so important. After all, an important thread thru all three of Cook's scientific voyages is his testing and use of various techniques for determining longitude, and that needs to be covered in the article.

The amount of detail should be guided by: (a) the relative amount of coverage the sources give; (b) whether lay readers will need to know; and (c) if other WP articles exist that can be linked for the reader to follow. (This applies to all topics, not just longitude).

In the case of longitude, it is complicated (in this article) because the info is currently spread across 2 or 3 sections (mostly "2nd voyage" and "Legacy: Navigation & Science" sections).

I agree with the points made above by @Aemilius Adolphin ... in particular: more work needs to be done to refine & improve the text about longitude & timepieces.

I'll keep working on the article, and I'll specifically try to improve the longitude/timepiece information based on the inputs from you all, above. Fortunately, the sources talk about longitude/timepieces a lot, so there is no shortage of material. Noleander (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with all the above. If links to other articles turn out not to be a suitable solution, yet the article has several mentions of the longitude problem, one device to consider is using a footnote where the same footnote is triggered in different places in the article. I am guessing you already know that an {{efn}} template can be named and used in more than one location. The footnote explaining a knighthead (currently h) in Vasa (ship) is an example of a footnote being used twice. Though I find you don't really know which is the best solution until you try it out. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I have Sobel's book. It is comprehensive and a marvellous read, but it is popular and not specialist science. Nevertheless, it might be cited here for Cook's use of chronometers on his second and third voyages: ch 13 (pp 138-151). Errantios (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any particular fact or insight about Capt. Cook in the Sobel book that should be in this article (and is not yet represented)? Bear in mind that this article cannot include too much tangential information (that is not related to Cook directly)... it is already quite large. This article already has a link to the Wikipedia article about the longitude problem: History of longitude ... any generic info about longitude should go in there. Noleander (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You're right. On re-reading that chapter of Sobel, I don't find anything that is not already better included. Errantios (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

External links

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 24 entries with three subsections. Three seems to be an acceptable number of "External links" and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. However, consensus needs to determine this.

However, none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.

External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not a big fan of external links ... they can make an article look cluttered; and the important items can be hidden by the chaff.

  I would have no objection to deleting all the external links except:

  • Journals written by Cook, or by his crew or supernumeraries (and not already listed above in Sources)
  • Museum collections of Cook-related items

  All the other external links can be deleted, in my opinion (unless an editor makes a compelling case in the Talk page). What do other editors think? Noleander (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with your proposal. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Working on 2nd voyage section

FYI: I'm working on the section James_Cook#Searching_for_Terra_Australis. It was in pretty bad shape before. I've added all the events that I think lay readers will find interesting, and added many cites. The section is still a bit large (relative to this article) so it has to be trimmed. And the prose is not yet top-quality ... I'm working on it. Noleander (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have been quite busy recently, but I will be happy to help with sources and everything. (I have written or updated a few Cook-related articles, but have shied away from working on the big one). A Voyage Round the World#Content is my best at summarising the second voyage (from one of the narratives). —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks: that A Voyage Round the World article looks very elegant and professional... nice work! I'll definitely read it to get some ideas.

The biggest challenge I'm facing it abridgment: For example, the lazy way to write the 2nd voyage section is to narrate all significant events and locations; but then the article ends up replicating the content of the Second voyage of James Cook article, thus violating the intent of the WP:Summary style guideline. So, one must abridge and condense, which can easily lead to an unappealing "bullet-point" writing style (see essay WP:PROSELINE). It's harder to write an abridgement than a full account. Ditto for just about every other section in this article.

Thanks for the offer of assistance: I'll reach out for sure when I need a second set of eyeballs. For sources: I'll post here in this Talk page; there seem to be many helpful editors who have a deep knowledge of the subject. Noleander (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Best section for existing "leadership" paragraph?

The "Legacy" section, subsection "Science" at James_Cook#Science currently has this paragraph:

Several officers who served under Cook went on to distinctive accomplishments. William Bligh, Cook's sailing master, was given command of HMS Bounty in 1787 to sail to Tahiti and return with breadfruit. Bligh became known for the mutiny of his crew, which resulted in his being set adrift in 1789. He later became Governor of New South Wales, where he was the subject of another mutiny—the 1808 Rum Rebellion. George Vancouver, one of Cook's midshipmen, led a voyage of exploration to the Pacific Coast of North America from 1791 to 1794. In honour of Vancouver's former commander, his ship was named Discovery. George Dixon, who sailed under Cook on his third expedition, later commanded his own.

Very important information, reflecting on the leadership capabilities of Cook. Not clear which section it should go in. Lots of options:

1. Leave it in the existing Science section
   1. Change "Science" sec title to "Science and leadership"
   2. Leave "Science" sec title as-is
2. Put it into a new, small "Leadership" subsection
3. Leave it in place, but merge existing Science & Navigation sections into one big section covering Navigation, Leadership & Science (this is how the article was a couple of weeks ago). Would be big, but not too huge. What would section title be?
4. .. other? ...

I don't have any strong feelings about it. Anyone have any suggestions? Noleander (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Near loss of Grenville

I have reduced some of the detail which is too much for this incident. I don't think this incident deserves, for example, more space that the Transit of Venus section or twice as much space as the more famous and serious incident on the Great Barrier Reef. Policy states: ""An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." WP:PROPORTION Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point made above. The transit of Venus is covered in more detail in Wikipedia in First voyage of James Cook. The incident in the Thames estuary that could easily have taken Cook's life has no other place in Wikipedia. So the principle of proportionality is skewed by the major topic with which you compare it being covered in full in a different article. I appreciate that the seamanship involved in giving the best chance of the ship surviving a very bad situation might be lost on some readers, but it will have meaning for many. I will let you mull this over, but at the very least, the shortened version needs some correction (for instance, the ship was not "repaired", it was rigged with new spars as, so it would appear from the description, the old ones were thrown overboard to lighten the ship. It was a standard evolution when aground. See [5] for an illustration of this being done in calm weather (the sagging topmast shrouds are a clue to what is going on. The go-to reference would be Harland, John (2015). Seamanship in the age of sail : an account of shiphandling of the sailing man-o-war, 1600-1860. ISBN 978-1-8448-6309-9.) With the article making appropriately full mention of Cook's skills as a surveyor and hydrographer, it is easy to miss the fact that he was a highly skilled seaman as well. The suggestion above, that the "pre-exploration voyages" part could be split off into a separate article may ultimately apply.

What do others think? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, the account of the grounding on the barrier reef in First voyage of James Cook seems remarkably blandly written. It makes that event sound one step away from cracking a tail-light glass in a parking incident. The enormity of that damage only came to light when more complete repairs were done in Batavia – see Cook's journal, plus Beaglehole pg 262-263 ("what Mr Satterly had not been able to see was indeed disastrous"). I don't want to sound over-critical, but have to float the idea that editors need some grasp of the seamanship needed for the ships of that time. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired - Regarding the question "The suggestion above, that the "pre-exploration voyages" part could be split off into a separate article may ultimately apply. What do others think?" Creating a new article on the pre-Pacific-Ocean-exploration phase of his life could be a win-win. Readers of the encyclopedia interested in that time of Cook's life would have a centralized article, which can go into great detail. And it would avoid introducing any WP:PROPORTION or WP:SUMMARY issues into the James Cook parent article. If you choose to go that route: simply create a new, empty article, copy the text from the current section into it, and leave 2 or 3 summary paragraphs in this article. Noleander (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I have found a solution to all this by putting the long version in the article on Grenville, with a link from the shortened text. I have modified the short version somewhat, but it is essentially as brief as the first abridgement. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy with that solution, and the revised text looks good to me. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired Speaking of the Canada section, it has this sentence:

During the 1765 season, four pilots were engaged at a daily pay of 4 shillings each: John Beck for the coast west of "Great St Lawrence", Morgan Snook for Fortune Bay, John Dawson for Connaigre and Hermitage Bay, and John Peck for the "Bay of Despair".

Providing the names of the four pilots seems to be overly detailed relative to the rest of the article (they are placed on the same level as Ben Franklin or Cook's parents :-) The four pilots do not have WP articles. Also, naming the pilots so prominently may cause some readers to think that the pilots are notable. Would it be better to move their names into a footnote? Such as:

During the 1765 season, four pilots were engaged at a daily pay of 4 shillings each to assist with mapping the west coast of "Great St Lawrence", Fortune Bay, Connaigre, Hermitage Bay, and the "Bay of Despair"

Noleander (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Provisionally, I see no need to name these pilots either in the article or a footnote. The locations covered seem relevant for a footnote. I would like to check a source like Beaglehole to make that a final opinion, but am not at home at present. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems that only the cited source, James Cook in Newfoundland, gives the names of these local pilots. That further supports the idea that we do not need to name them in the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I moved the names into a footnote. We can always change our minds later, if necessary. Noleander (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed update to the existing "Controversy" section

I took a stab at updating the text in the Controversy section to make it more encyclopedic and cohesive. Overall, the content is about the same, but I hope the prose & organization is improved. Since the topic is potentially contentious, I wanted to post it here first and get feedback. Noleander (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this up for comment. I prefer the present version for the moment because its focus is James Cook whereas your proposed revision (especially the lead paragraph) puts the focus on the broader decolonisation movement. In other words, I prefer the version which starts with the recent spate of vandalisation of Cook memorials then a few lines that puts this into a broader context. Then a brief discussion of Cook's relationship to colonialism. If anything, I would cut the following paragraph: "In July 2021, a statue of Cook in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, was torn down in protests about the deaths of Indigenous residential school children in Canada. In January 2024, a statue of Cook in St Kilda, Melbourne was cut down in a protest against colonialism; the premier of Victoria pledged to work with the local council to repair the statue" as these are news items (WP:NOTNEWS). I would replace it with a sentence such as "attacks on public monuments to Cook continued" perhaps with a footnote giving a couple of examples. I certainly see no reason to bring Christopher Columbus and King Leopold of Belgium into it. I also much prefer the current concise summary of Alice Proctor which states the link between Cook and the broader decolonisation movement. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, I think the current version is not too bad... I was just trying to provide some big picture context. I'll leave it as is and implement those changes you mentioned. Thanks for the input. Noleander (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

To emphasise the point made above, I would strongly caution against putting the names of Cook, Columbus and King Leopold of Belgium in the same sentence, especially in this context. I think we have to have in mind the propensity of many to misunderstand what they read, especially with the shorter attention spans of readers these days. King Leopold was a totally ruthless exploiter, and Columbus enslaved people in the West Indies in direct contravention of the instructions from the patron for his expedition. This comment might now be redundant, but the point has to be made. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Controversy

See also: Indigenous response to colonialism

Advocates for indigenous peoples often make efforts to publicize and reverse the negative effects of colonialism. Some advocates call for public commemorations or celebrations of colonization to be eliminated or altered, such as as monuments, statues, street names, or holiday names. Efforts to remove or de-emphasize colonialism are sometimes directed at historic individuals such as Christopher Columbus, King Leopold of Belgium, or James Cook.

The period 2018 to 2021 marked the 250th anniversary of Cook's first voyage of exploration. Several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, arranged official events to commemorate the voyage, leading to widespread public debate about Cook's legacy and the violence associated with his contacts with Indigenous peoples. In the lead-up to the commemorations, various memorials to Cook in Australia and New Zealand were vandalised, and there were public calls for their removal or modification due to their alleged promotion of colonialist narratives. There were also campaigns for the return of Indigenous artefacts taken during Cook's voyages.

Other incidents include the destruction of a Cook statue in July 2021 in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The statue was torn down as part of protests about the deaths of Indigenous residential school children in Canada. In January 2024, a statue of Cook in St Kilda, Melbourne was cut down in a protest against colonialism; the premier of Victoria pledged to work with the local council to repair the statue.

Some scholars have questioned the emphasis that indigenous rights advocates place on on Cook, pointing out that he was more enlightened and humane than many contemporary explorers. Robert Tombs defended Cook, stating: "He epitomized the Age of Enlightenment in which he lived" and in conducting his first voyage "was carrying out an enlightened mission, with instructions from the Royal Society to show 'patience and forbearance' towards native peoples".

Art historian Alice Proctor analyzed the museum and art cultures in Australia and concluded that there is a significant bias in favor of Europeans, colonialists, and explorers like Cook, at the expense of indigenous peoples and culture. She also concluded that Cook and his scientists looted indigenous cultures, with the goal of providing European museums with artefacts.

Belongs in Category:British people executed abroad ?

Cook is currently listed in Category:British people executed abroad.

Looking in that category, it only has about 25 people in it, and it appears that the category is intended to contain people that were tried for a crime, and found guilty, and executed. It seems like Cook does not belong to that category, but rather in the Category:British people murdered abroad. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I made that change. Let me know if it doesn't seem right. Noleander (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly wasn't "executed" in any reasonable definition of that term. Tbh am not entirely convinced that "murder" works either - per our definition of Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse committed with the necessary intention as defined by the law in a specific jurisdiction. How confident are we that the state of Anglo-Hawaiian relations at the time of Cooks death made that death without justification or valid excuse as defined by Hawaiian custom or law? Certainly it was murder from a British perspective, but Hawaii was not under British jurisdiction and it's at least arguable the Hawaiians felt the attack had provocation and potentially justification.

Cook was killed in a surprise attack, certainly. It was possibly an unfair surprise attack, or not, depending on the point of view. Just not sure that it was technically a murder given the specific time, jurisdiction and circumstances. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The more specific article Death of James Cook has a Talk section "#Account of death" in which User:GreenC makes IMHO a valuably balanced contribution, to the effect in the present context that we just do not know enough to make an assessment as definite as "execution" or "murder". My preference would be to remove Cook from both "executed abroad" and "murdered abroad". Errantios (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'll remove from both categories. But if there are more opinions or insights we should definitely keep the conversation going. Noleander (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it should continue, at least at first, in Death of James Cook "#Account of death", where User:GreenC plans to deal with a new and detailed biography of Cook: Sides, Hampton (2024). The Wide Wide Sea. Errantios (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This is on my todo list to rewrite that article but honestly it will take some time and that is something I don't have much of these days. There is a lot of junk history out there about Cook that has made its way into Wikipedia. I agree he was not "Executed", it was a fluid and contingent situation on the beach that morning. It was more like walking into a bad neighborhood and insulting the wrong people and things escalated and nobody backed down and some people got hurt. Afterwards there were apologies, the ship was resupplied and everyone went their way. — GreenC 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Source needed for "Terra Australis was expected to extend into temperate zone"

Two of the three voyages involved a search for Terra Australis. After the 2nd voyage, sources say that fellow naturalists concluded that Terra Australis did not exist. Since he mostly travelled at around 60 degrees latitude, that did not seem like a solid conclusion to me. Then I read another source that said that (at that time) naturalists expected Terra Australis to extend into the temperate zones. So now the conclusion that T. A. did not exist makes more sense.

Unfortunately, I cannot recall which source said "naturalists expected that Terra Australis extended into the temperate zones". I see that assertion in two web sites, but they're kinda sketchy:

• https://static-prod.lib.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/pacific-ocean/terra-australis.html
• https://gatesofvienna.net/2022/09/terra-australis-incognita/

Does anyone have a reliable source for the assertion "naturalists expected that Terra Australis extended into the temperate zones"? Noleander (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander Blainey (2020) p 39 presents Dalrymple's opinion thus: "[The missing continent's] more favoured regions would probably imitate the climate of the Mediterranean". Blainey also writes, "if the landmass were found to extend close to tropical Tahiti, as Robertson of the Dolphin predicted, then the new continent might be a paradise of tropical products as well as those of the temperate zone." Blainey states that Robertson, Dalrymple and Charles de Brosse were among the leading advocates of the missing continent. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Blainey (2020) pp 40-42 also cites James Douglas, Earl of Morton as a proponent of the new continent who thought that it would likely be well populated and prosperous. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Excellent ... thanks so much! Noleander (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Rank before or after name in first sentence of lead?

FYI: I posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#First_sentence:_put_rank_before_or_after_name? asking if the first sentence in a military biography article should start "Captain James Cook was ... " or "James Cook was ... [captain is mentioned here] ... ". I searched for an MOS guideline that covered it, but could not find one. If anyone has any insight on that question, please post info at that Project Talk page. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

An editor there gave a pretty definitive answer (rank before name for British military bios) so no need for more input. Noleander (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have opposed that answer, writing: "But putting rank of any kind after the name seems to be general WP practice, so perhaps should be added to MOS. Examples: we don't put 'Professor' or even 'Queen' before the name. I don't see why military should be an exception." So I agree with your previous edit of the article, as "James Cook" and afterwards "Captain ...". Errantios (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you (see my reply there). But it is probably best to follow the Royal Navy convention in this James Cook Lead, at least until there is consensus in WP (in reality: consensus in the WP Military History project) to establish a new MOS for military ranks. Noleander (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Surely the deficiency of denoting a rank is that this just captures a moment in time. He was a lieutenant when he made his (arguably) most significant first voyage, a commander on his second, and a post captain on his third. Without these 3 voyages, I guess there would still be sufficient notability through his time surveying Newfoundland as a master for there to be an article here.
Putting his rank at the time of his death in the first sentence of the article, especially as the first word, is "sound-bitey" and I question whether it is truly encyclopaedic in style. It might be more representative of his career (and indicative of his breadth of experience) to simply list, in the first paragraph of the article, the ranks he held over his naval career, something like:
"He joined the Royal Navy as an able seaman, was soon promoted to master's mate and bo'sun, then as his career progressed, master, lieutenant, commander and finally post-captain."
That would need polishing up with the correct links for each position.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I argue that the most notable thing that he did was as a lieutenant. That is not something we necessarily need to spell out, but it is incomplete and misleading to emphasise the rank at the time of his death by placing it as the first word of the article.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

style and content check

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) might serve as a useful check for style and content for this article. That is not to suggest that we should slavishly follow that work, but use it to as a comparison point, simply because it is trying to do the same job that we are doing here. I note some recent change here (e.g. passing the exam for lieutenant) to include content that already existed in the ODNB article – is there anything else of that sort?

It might also add something to consideration of how Cook's rank is dealt with in the opening of the article.

It can be found at [6], though I appreciate that it will only be free to access for some editors. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Changes to lead

I have made a few interim changes to the lead but I think we should have another think about it when we've finished the changes to the article. I prefer the previous wording about Cook charting coastlines etc in the Pacific from Hawaii to the east coast of Australia. (Although it's still inadequate: South Georgia Island isn't in the Pacific.) He claimed many lands for Britain, not just several. I'm also not sure about a "crucial" time in British exploration: there's nothing about this in the article. And surely Cook was famous, not just "known". He was the most famous man in the British empire at the time and there are many sources which state this: it's not just peacocking. But we can discuss further. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin - You're right. I changed words back to "crucial" and "famous" in the Lead. I though the wording was a bit too WP:PEACOCK, but for this person, the words are warranted. Noleander (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Source for jetty in Hawaii?

@Errantios: Re the jetty in Hawaii ... the source

• <ref>Photo by Camilo Gaivoto, [[Google Earth]]<!--one of multiple angles of Street View, found by serendipity-->, access date 1 June 2025.</ref>

is not very strong per WP:RS. Can you find a better source? Ideally, there'd be a newspaper article or something that talks about the jetty. Otherwise, it verges on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues. Noleander (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a source: https://www.captaincooksociety.com/cooks-life/places/a-visit-to-kealakekua-bay-19-july-2005 This source is the Captain Cook Society, which is not as scholarly as one would hope, but they seem to have stupendous detail in their web site, and they are already used as a source for several sentences in this article. I have not yet encountered any factual errors in their web pages. In several cases, they are the only source I've been able to find for particular facts in this article. Noleander (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much—have added. Errantios (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Split "Early life and family" section?

The section James_Cook#Early_life_and_family doesn't seem as well organized as it could be (I'm not talking the content/prose, just the section organization).

The section seems to be covering two distinct topics: Early Life, and Family. Which might make sense for some figures, but in this case: he got married when he was 34, not really in his "early" life. Also, when a section title has the word "and" in it, that raises questions.

Any suggestions on ways to improve it? Split the section into two? It is not a huge deal, and maybe it should be left as-is. But I have a feeling it could be organized better. Noleander (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I split the section into two. It seems cleaner; the titles are more terse; and the sections are not too large. There is an outlier paragraph that contains Samwell's description of Cook (now in the Family section), but it seems tolerable. Noleander (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Source for "In honour of Vancouver's former commander, his ship was named Discovery"

The article has the sentence: In honour of Vancouver's former commander, his ship was named Discovery. There is no cite for it. I cannot, yet, find a source to support it. It seems like there are three possible scenarios:

• HMS Discovery (1789) was named after HMS Discovery (1774), simply as a matter of course, with no special intention
• HMS Discovery (1789) was named to honour HMS Discovery (1774)
• HMS Discovery (1789) was named to honour Cook, by naming it after a ship in one of Cook's expeditions

Does anyone have a source that could support one of the above? Noleander (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably named for Cook's ship: This source says "named for Cook's ship". The article section George_Vancouver#Spanish_Empire-sponsored_voyages says it was "named on honour" of the previous ship, and gives two offline sources: The Great Circle is here, and the other I can't find - both would need to be verified. -- GreenC 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. The first one (https://antiqueprintmaproom.com/product/the-discovery-convict-ship-lying-at-dentford-the-vessel-which-accompanied-capt-cook-on-his-last-voyage/) has a good statement (ship named after ship) but is a sketchy source, not sure we can use it in this article. The second source The Great Circle article does not say what the ship is named after, unfortunately. I guess we can keep looking. It's possible that there are no solid sources stating how Vancouver's ship got its name. Noleander (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The most authoritative source is Vancouver's own journals, and for that we have a modern multi-volume annotated edition by W. K. Lamb here; sadly the first volume is missing which probably has a Preface and Introduction by Lamb, that might mention it. I think that antique map room source is not so bad because these places often have in house historians and getting facts correct is important to the buyer. The About Us page makes them look high-end and reputable. They say "We take great care to carefully research every product that we find so that our customers can be sure that the information they are given is as accurate as possible. We use a variety of historical research methods". This is basically how we define what a reliable source is for Wikipedia purposes, outlets known for research, fact checking, editorial control. -- GreenC 20:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Citations:

• "Vancouver's Voyage of Discovery". Royal Geographical Society of South Australia. Retrieved 2025-06-02. Vancouver's voyage left Falmouth, England on 1 April 1791 in the new sloop Discovery (named after Cook's ship)
• Landauer, Lyndall Baker (2022). "George Vancouver". EBSCO. Retrieved 2025-06-02. His ship was the Discovery, a newly built namesake of Cook's ship.

-- GreenC 22:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I added the cites to George Vancouver and HMS Discovery (1789). If it should be added here I will leave for others. — GreenC 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it here ... using the Royal Geographic Society source. Noleander (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Cook's concern for cleanliness & hygiene of crew

Several sources mention Cook's concern for cleanliness & hygiene of his crew. It seems closely related to his concern for their diet & scurvy. I added the following (as a footnote) into the existing paragraph on scurvy (in the Science section):

Cook also promoted hygiene by having the crew wash frequently and air-out their bedding and quarters.

If anyone thinks it should be promoted into the body text, or otherwise altered, we can do that. Noleander (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Cook comments

Thanks again to Noleander and Thoughtidretired for significantly improving this article. Sorry I haven't had the time to help as much as I would have liked to but here are some comments and suggestions for possible further improvements.

Family

I think the details of the death of Nathaniel and George Cook would be better as a footnote to the sentence "Cook had no direct descendants..." rather than crammed into a list of children and dates. Do we not know how James and Elizabeth died?

I added cause of death for son James; moved all three causes of death into footnotes. Could not find cause of death for Elizabeth. Noleander (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The verbal description of Cook at age 47 doesn't really fit into a section called "Family".

Agree. Temporarily commented out the paragraph, pending a decision of where to put it, or even whether to keep it. The article already has two paintings of him, although those do not give readers his height. Also, a textual description may be useful for users that are visually impaired. Noleander (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander On further reflection, Samwell's verbal description of Cook fits well immediately after the paragraph about the crew on the Third Voyage. It's a shame for it to be deleted but I will leave the final decision to you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Death

On re-reading this, our account looks biased towards Cook and his crew. According to Beaglehole (pp 671-672) and Williams, the locals threatened Cook's party with daggers and stones when news arrived that one of their chiefs had been killed. Cook fired small shot as a warning but this enraged them more. They threw more stones and tried to stab one of Cook's party (Phillips). Cook then fired ball shot and killed a local. More stones were thrown, then the British opened fire (perhaps first from the boats, perhaps first the marines on shore). Perhaps Cook then ordered them to stop firing or perhaps he didn't. In any case, there was a melée and they tried to retreat to the boats. Cook was perhaps first clubbed then stabbed or just stabbed. The only eye witness we have (Phillips) says that he reached a boat and didn't know what happened to Cook. 4 marines were killed. At least one local was killed (but its hard to believe that more weren't). Williams gives the best overview of the conflicting accounts that I've read. esp pp 35-40.

I would be inclined to simplify this by something like: "News reached the Hawaiians that high-ranking Hawaiian chief Kalimu had been shot (on the other side of the bay) while trying to break through a British blockade – this exacerbated the already tense situation. Hawaiian warriors confronted the landing party and threatened them with stones, clubs and daggers. Cook fired a warning shot then shot one of the Hawaiians dead. The Hawaiians continued to attack and the British fired more shots before launching the boats to leave. Cook and four marines were killed in the affray and left on the shore. An unknown number of Hawaiians were killed."

I incorporated the suggested text (from above), and added Williams as a source. I also added more details to the existing footnote about "The accounts of the death are confusing and contradictory". Noleander (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Navigation

This is fine, but I think we need a short section somewhere on Cook's seamanship. Undisputedly great, but Blainey (2020, pp. 189-94) has recently argued that there are "grave doubts" about Cook's seamanship leading up to the grounding on the Great Barrier Reef.

Leadership

The list of people who served under Cook and later had distinguished careers is probably original research because it implies, but does not prove by reliable secondary sources, that it was Cook's leadership that led to them having successful careers. A sub-section on leadership is warranted, but probably shouldn't come under the Legacy section. I think we need to discuss what reliable secondary sources say about Cook's leadership skills. Beaglehole and others praise Cook's leadership but are also candid about his failings in this regard, particularly on his third voyage.

There's also an issue of redundancy (we already mention them as crew members in earlier sections) and tangential information (we don't need a potted history of Bligh's career: the link does that).

I agree that it could violate WP:OR polices, so secondary sources are required if the article is going to identify specific crew members. I seem to recall that 2 or 3 biographies, near the end, have epilogue chapters that list such crew members. The biographers probably do not use words like "Due to Cook's leadership skills, these crew members became successful..." but they certainly convey the assertion that Cook's influence on the crew improved the crew's skills. Perhaps the section title should not be "Leadership" but something else like "Subsequent careers of crewmembers" or something like that? Bligh's journey could probably go in a footnote (or removed) ... tho if multiple Cook biographers include that journey in their biography of Cook, it may be permissible to include this WP article. Great articles should be engaging and those sort of tidbits can contribute (but only if 2ndary RSs support it). Noleander (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander I still have a problem with this. If we trace the careers of his crews, even briefly, we are straying from Cook onto another topic. It would be like a section tracing the subsequent history of the Hawaiians Cook met. We are also cherry-picking the crew members we are following. Why not mention John Williamson who many blame for Cook's death (he led the cutter away from Cook when he was signalling for help) but who subsequently was promoted rapidly until he was court martialled for misreading a signal at the Battle of Camperdown? Or John Rickman whose career was ruined because he accidently shot the chief on the other side of the bay? (See: Ashley, Scott. "How Navigators Think: The Death of Captain Cook Revisited". Past and Present. 194 (1) – via JSTOR.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

If you think the section should be deleted, I have no problem with that. My point was simply that if several major biographers of Cook talk about his followers, then the Wikipedia article can also. But the section is not critical and can be deleted. Noleander (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer it was removed and perhaps replaced with footnotes added to the crew sections for each voyage. But I would be happy to wait for peer review and see what others think. I don't want to complicate the excellent work you are doing. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed the section and put the crew details for Bligh and Vancouver into footnotes; Dixon I omitted. Noleander (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Science

We mention Cook's accurate charting throughout the article but it would be nice if we could find a succinct quote from someone stating just how accurate they were. I think it is Blainey who writes about the accuracy of his charts for New Zealand and NSW and how they were used well into the 19th century. I will try to find it.

"Cook's contributions to knowledge gained international recognition during his lifetime..." The following quote from Benjamin Franklin isn't specific about Cook's contribution to science and knowledge, Franklin just calls him a friend of mankind.

Changed the selection (from the letter by B. Franklin) to include words about science & geography, so it is more pertinent. Move the revised quote into a footnote. Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Are William Hodges' paintings science?

Temporarily commented-out sentences about artists, pending determination if they belong in article, and - if so - where. Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Memorials

I don't think we need the the quote from the Obit in the Norwich Chronicle. Cook was a very famous man: Isn't there a more famous obituary in a better known publication? The whole section is a dog's breakfast: there must be dozens of more significant memorials to Cook than a shopping square in Middlesborough. I suggest that we just present the major memorials rather than giving the impression that we are aiming for an exhaustive list.

Culture

The section is completely inadequate. If there are "many literary creations" about Cook we should be able to come up with more than Slessor and a forgotten poem by a second-rate poet. "Cook has been depicted in numerous films, documentaries and dramas" is true, but the citations are not to high quality sources and only refer to three. This will not pass muster if reviewed for Good Article status. We need some reliable secondary sources discussing Cook's cultural legacy. They exist, and I am happy to draft something, but it will be a couple of weeks before I can get around to it.

Agree. Temporary commented-out entire "Culture" section until it can be assessed and re-written. New sources are probably needed - ideally secondary sources that already did the curation & analysis. Noleander (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Citation style

The article uses both sfn and full inline citations using the citation templates. I suspect a review for GA status will require a consistent citation style in accordance with policy. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin Thanks for the insightful and detailed suggestions. They all look valuable and useful, and I'll work to incorporate them.

Regarding uniform citation format: "The article uses both sfn and full inline citations using the citation templates. I suspect a review for GA status will require a consistent citation style in accordance with policy": the MOS only requires that the article have a sensible, uniform format for citations, but does not require that all citations be sfn, or all be inline <ref>. For example, articles can use any of the the following approaches to pass the WP:FA review process:

1. Exclusively sfn/harvnb
2. Exclusively inline <ref>
3. Hybrid approach: sfn/harvnb for "major" sources that appear in the "Sources" section; otherwise use inline <ref> for minor or one-off sources

All these approaches are acceptable for WP:GA or WP:FA ... they vary in attractiveness, ease of editing, and reader-friendliness. Approach (3) may be optimal for this article, since sfn is more-or-less required for major books that are used by multiple citations; yet the article also has several dozen minor, "one off" sources (e.g. newspapers, journal articles, etc) that are used only once. Although sfn could be used for the latter, readers are then required to click twice to reach the source (and, also, the article's screen size gets larger).

Thanks again for taking the time to provide outstanding, thoughtful suggestions!! Noleander (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Section title Memorials versus Commemorations?

The second title is currently Memorials, But I wonder if a better title would be Commemorations. That is a broader word, and would encompass things like reenactments and so on. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Commemorations is good. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Source that provides estimated total number of indigenous killed?

The article has estimate of total number of Maori killed (9); and total number of Hawaii's killed on the 3rd voyage during the confrontation(s) surrounding Cooks death (17); but I cannot find a source that estimates the total number killed on all three voyages. Does anyone know of such a source?

Related: the Death section has "Seventeen Hawaiians were killed" ... but the article should probably make it clear if that number is (a) only deaths that occurred during the confrontation on shore in the hours surrounding Cook's death; or (b) also includes any deaths that happened in following day or two; or (c) total number from all visits to Hawaii. [PS: The source may already make it clear .... I'll check the source myself soon; don't have time this instant] Noleander (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander Williams (2008) p 41 states: "seventeen islanders were killed at Kaawaloa [ie during the affray] the previous day, and another eight elsewhere." Beaglehole (1974) pp 674-675 states that the Hawaiians lost "four chiefs...and thirteen others" in "the wretched affray". According to Williams and Beaglehole other Hawaiians were killed in revenge attacks in the following days but they don't give a number. Thomas (2003) p. 401 quotes Captain Clerke as saying that "5 or 6" were killed by the British in revenge attacks but Thomas adds that he suspects this was an underestimate. As for the total number killed in Cook's voyages, Thomas writes (p 401): "In four days men off Cook's ships killed more Islanders (at least thirty) than they had over the preceding ten years (about fifteen)." I think the safest conclusion is that 17 Hawaiians were killed in the actual affray in which Cook was killed, another eight in other incidents on that day, and at least five or six in revenge attacks over the following three days. This gives "at least 30". Therefore the total "islanders" killed by Cook and his men during his three voyages is estimated by Thomas as at least 45. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Noleander (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin - Question: Page 401 of Thomas says "In four days, men off Cook’s ships killed more Islanders (at least thirty) than they had over the preceding ten years (about fifteen).". It is not clear if the 15 figure is Hawaiians, or indigenous peoples in the Pacific. The word "Islanders" is capitalized, so maybe he means 15 Hawaiians. On the other hand, he says "preceding ten years" which suggests he means all indigenous from 1769 to 1779 (he only visited Hawaii in the final 13 months of that decade). Other sources say he killed 9 Maori, total, so that would be consistent with the 15 indigenous. I looked in the "footnotes/sources" section at pp 442-443, but did find any clarification. Noleander (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I am sure the figure of 15 refers to all Pacific Islanders, including those of New Zealand. It is common in British English to capitalise "Islanders" to refer to Pacific Islanders. Also ten years covers the start of the first voyage so that is almost certainly what he is referring to. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding this info into the Controversy section. So far, tentatively, I've put this at the start of the section:

Cook is a controversial figure due to his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he played a role in facilitating British colonialism. Cook and his crew killed an estimated 45 indigenous people during the three voyages: nine Māori, thirty Hawaiians during the days surrounding Cook's death, and about six others.[bd]

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which Cook can be held accountable for the subsequent European colonization of the Pacific. Scholar Glyndwr Williams points out that, although Cook was only following orders from the Admiralty when he explored the coast of Australia on his first voyage, the orders explicitly required Cook to obtain consent of indigenous peoples before claiming the land for Britain – yet Cook claimed the east coast of Australia without obtaining consent.[271] A number of commentators argue that Cook enabled British imperialism and colonialism in the Pacific.[272][273][274][275][t]

I'm still working on it, but if anyone has thoughts about wording, or which section it should go in, let's discuss. Noleander (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the wording is fine and the information about the death toll of indigenous people fits well in the Controversies section. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)