Talk:James Cook

Death in lead

Surely the context of his death should be added – 'during a dispute'? Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As I explained to you before on your Talk Page, there is context for this. Previous versions of the lead were verging on ridiculous infinite regress. "viz Cook was killed while trying to kidnap the native king as ransom for return of a longboat which was taken as revenge for the theft of wood from a sacred temple which was taken because the native priest might had given permission, which might have been a ruse to entrap Cook...etc.

The current version looks fine to me. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to final lead sentence

Given that the above discussion has entirely fallen to the side, I wish to see if anyone has any opinions on or opposition two combining the final two sentences of the lead as such:

'Numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him and his achievements, while his role as an enabler of British colonialism and his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples remain a source of controversy.'

Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with "enabler of British colonialism". The expanded text later in the article, in the Controversy sub-section, explains that's not a universal view. The word "enabler" implies to me an active, conscious contribution to all that came later. As a junior naval officer, dead by the time of decisions regarding the First Fleet, Cook had no say at all in those events. A lot of the controversy involves misunderstandings of what he did. We should not write as if those misunderstandings reflect the truth. He really didn't play much of a role in colonisation at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On the principle that the lead is meant to summarise the article, the "enabler of British colonialism" label should not be applied there in the way that it does. This is because the main body of the article explains that some apply this term to Cook but then points out that it was Banks who initiated the Botany Bay colony. The Guardian article – cited in the main body of the article on this point – does not actually say that he was an enabler of colonialism, but concentrates more on his crassly insensitive and violent treatment of indigenous people that he met on his travels. On an important point like this, the article should surely be using serious biographies as a source, not a newspaper article. (I do not have access to the other source cited on the "enabler" point – but it is not a biography by an academic historian.) Looking at just one biography (and by a historian who does not qualify for the title "academic historian") Frank McLynn's Captain Cook, Master of the Seas is quite clear that popular criticism of Cook is misplaced in its extent(pg 417). What do other serious historical works say on this point?

So if the main body of the article says "some say this" and "others argue that", then it is entirely wrong for the lead to state just one of these two views. I have therefore made some change to the lead that hopefully deals with this problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to the stable version until some consensus is reached. I see no consensus for the version of @ThoughtIdRetired. I am happy to consider different wording for the lead, but I am opposed to individual editors trying to impose their own preferred wording when the the issue is currently under discussion and no consensus has been reached. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired To answer your substantive points:

1) The context of the statement in the lead is not confined to "serious works by academic historians" but actual public controversy over the legacy of James Cook. The section is the legacy section. In a general article of James Cook it is necessary to briefly state that he is a controversial figure for the reasons stated.

2) What do "serious academic historians say? Well, here are a few:

Blainey (2020), "Cook's [1767] voyage has become more controversial, especially in Australia where his discovery and its consequences are now questioned by Aboriginal leaders and by many historians. In Sydney his statue was recently vandalised. The great navigator is branded as an invader and destroyer." Pp x-xi

Stephen Gapps (2020) states, " In the broader strategic sense – as all 18th and early 19th century scientific voyages were – Cook’s voyages were part of a European drive to conquer. The aim was to claim resources and trade in support of the British Empire’s expansion."

Nicholas Thomas (2003), states, " It has to be acknowledged, also, that he was in the business of dispossession: he claimed inhabited islands and land right around the Pacific for the Crown."

Thomas also: "Yet when we damn Cook for inaugurating the business of colonization, we are in underlying agreement with traditional Cook idealizers – we are seeing the explorer above all as a founder or precursor…" pp xxxii-xxxiii

In summary, few in the current debate over Cook's legacy are stating that he colonised anything himself. they are stating that he "enabled" British colonisation and imperialism in the South pacific by "claiming possession" of dozens of inhabited places for Britain. Trying to suppress this in the article is ridiculous: it is the dominent view of Cook in recent scholarship and political discussion. The words acedaemics and other commentators use to describe Cook;s role include: "the usher of the colonial land grab – the doorman for British invasion in 1788…" ; "Captain James Cook arrived in the Pacific 250 years ago, triggering British colonisation of the region."; "[We must] confront Cook’s legacy not as the projected shining icon of Enlightenment, but as a mythic presence built on deliberate theft, dispossession and violence." ; "Cook's [1767] voyage has become more controversial, especially in Australia where his discovery and its consequences are now questioned by Aboriginal leaders and by many historians."

I would be happy to change the statement in the lead to: "His role in British imperialism and colonisation remains controversial". Or words to that effect. But to deny that sailing around the world "claiming" inhabited lands for Britain had absolutely no consequence for British imperialism and colonialism is wilful denial and contrary to the predominant view of commentators as demonstrated by the majority of reliable sources for the past 20 years or so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are playing an aggressive and fairly nasty straw man game there. Nobody is claiming that sailing around the world "claiming" inhabited lands for Britain had absolutely no consequence for British imperialism and colonialism. Please stick to discussing what others have actually said, so we can discuss things honestly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To answer the actual question under discussion:I think your proposed change is inferior to the current version for the reasons I previously explained. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the changes ThoughtIdRetired made and which you reverted provided a good balance. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be totally clear, this is an issue of whether the lead accurately summarises the article. As it now stands, it does not. It gives only one half of the views represented in the final paragraph of the Controversy section of the article. If you wish the lead to stand as it currently exists, this would rely on changes being made to the main body of the article – something that would clearly need discussion here. In the interim, the lead should not present just one of the opinions found later in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired that as presently constituted the lede does not accurately summarize the article. I propose an alternative text: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and for being an enabler of British colonialism according to some commentators". It seems to me to do the job. Carlstak (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the people who criticise Cook as an enabler of colonialism aren't formal historical commentators. They are people who see things like the stupid inscriptions on statues saing Cook discovered the place, and quite rightfully in my view get angry. Cook didn't put those inscriptions there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired@CarlstakI understand your approach, but the intention of the sentence in the lead isn't to "present just one of the opinions later found in the article." The intention is to show that there is a controversy and one of the points of controversy is whether Cook was an enabler of British imperialism and colonialism. I have changed the wording in the Contoversy section and added two more sources to better identify the point of controversy involved. I suggest a better way of summarising this in the lead would be: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples and there is debate on whether he enabled British imperialism and colonialism." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That's better, but I'm not sure it's quite right yet. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I would go for something like: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples and there is debate on whether he can be held responsible for enabling British imperialism and colonialism." I am almost tempted to use the words "paving the way for" instead of "enabling". I feel that the issue is "responsibility". We all know that his exploration was a precursor to the later colonisation – the question is whether or not he can be blamed for what others did after him. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement. I think "enabling" is more concise, but if others prefer "paving the way" I won't object. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with ThoughtIdRetired's suggestion, and I prefer "paving the way". Carlstak (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made this change, opting for the "paving the way" version. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If I'm honest I think I prefer the old wording; the new wording is clunky and adds little if anything. Will Thorpe (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Many don't. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Carlstak (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

The long held belief that Captain Cook’s son James, died without issue has in 2024 been disputed in a new book. . Verifiable evidence based on the discovery of a newly discovered 18th century government document discovered in the British National Archives reveals history changing facts about the family of James Cook senior, including compelling evidence that there are indeed direct descendants throughout the world via his son James junior.­. The book presents not only a full transcript of the Naval enquiry into the supposed drowning of James junior, but also evidence of an orchestrated cover-up of the incident and genealogical evidence to support the theory that James may have deserted his post and returned to his wife and son in North Yorkshire. Mr Yorky (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a fringe theory. WP:Fringe When it is taken seriously by a significant number of experts in the field we can consider incorporating it in the article. At this stage, the claims of "an orchestrated cover-up" rings alarm bells. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like Aemilius Adolphin is prone to arbitrary decisions based on his own beliefs and prejudices. Unless he has read the contents of the book, how does he come to the 'fringe theory' conclusions. It would seem this comment is made merely because it 'Sounds Like' a fringe theory to him. His decision making based on personal feelings must ring alarm bells for any contributor /editor of Wikipedia Mr Yorky (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just following policy. It's not me you need to convince, it's a significant number of experts in the field. When this happens we can incorporate the theory. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References