Talk:James Cook/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First to map Newfoundland

The second sentence begins, "Cook was the first to map Newfoundland...". I had to check the link to make sure it was about some other Newfoundland, surely not the one in Canada. But it is in fact the Canadian island being described. Cook was the first to map it. Huh. And here I thought even Cabot mapped Newfoundland, if not all of it, nor with much accuracy. Here's a web page showing various historic maps of Newfoundland. Obviously Cook was not "the first to map Newfoundland" as claimed here. Reading farther down the page I learned what he really did, which was to spend five years surveying, resulting in "the first large-scale and accurate maps of the island’s coasts". This is quite different from what is said in sentence two. Also, it would be nice if the more detailed info were referenced--give us at least one source about this! This page, titled James Cook Map, says, about maps of Newfoundland, "It was not until the start of the last quarter of the 18th century that maps based upon scientific surveys appeared. Among the best made of the island was the 1775 map of James Cook and Michael Lane." To me this suggests that Cook may not even have been the first to bring scientific surveying methods to Newfoundland, just that his work was "among the best" of the time. It also points out his mapping work was done in collaboration with Michael Lane (whoever that was). This map was published in 1768, just barely after Cook's last survey season in 1767. Unfortunately the page doesn't say whether it was made by Cook or not.

Anyway, I'll see if I can find better info. For now I am just going to remove the second sentence's mention of mapping Newfoundland. Feel free to put it back, but maybe with slightly less bizarre wording? Pfly (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a less bizarre version. Feel free to tweak.-gadfium 07:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, looks fine. I did a quick search for sources and of course there are tons, some extremely detailed. It seems that Cook did an extremely good job. One book says his Newfoundland charts were "a thing almost overpowering in its detail and colour as well as size. This was raising British hydrographic surveying to a new power." It's also interesting that he published them himself, at his own expense. The Admiralty had no hydrographic department at the time, and "engraved nothing and published nothing". They would have basically put Cook's surveys "into a cupboard". It's too late for me to try to write up anything tonight. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Why should he be listed as British just because his father was Scottish, oh hang on his father is listed as Scottish shouldn't he be listed British, cook was born in England and listing him as English which he was is much more accurate and is written for other admirals such as nelson why should England share its people with the rest of Britain when we cannot call other people British George you wanted a discussion well here it is.Davido488 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all been discussed above. What do you have to offer this discussion that is truly new? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy is a British institution, as a serving officer in the Royal Navy, British seems more appropriate. He was also half-Scottish, being of Scottish parentage. I see you've also canvassed a like minded editor may I draw your attention to WP:CANVAS and also WP:3RR as edit warring seems a silly thing to be blocked for. Regards, Justin talk 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin do you have proof of him being proud of his Scottish heritage, because he never quoted of it, and even if he was half Scottish he was born in England making him English, may I inform you that the Surname Cook is as English as can be, so how do you know hes an Anglo-Scot, Cheers.Davido488 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the relevant discussion above. Actually Cook or Cooke is in fact also a Scottish surname. Oh and I'm an Evil Scotsman! Regards, Justin talk 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friend it is relevant it's whether his dad was ethnically Scottish and Cook is a English surname Old English Coc http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Cook, http://genealogy.about.com/od/surname_meaning/p/cook.htm, http://www.ancestry.com/facts/cook-name-meaning.ashx, and even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_(surname), cheers.Davido488 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] It is also Scottish, as I pointed out to you. Justin talk 14:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC) BTW be wary of online sources being merely a copy from the wiki article, fallen foul of that myself. Justin talk 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That was Cooke, Cook is what we are discussing and his fathers surname is of English origin, there are 3 sources all saying English origin, here is another http://www.houseofnames.com/cook-family-crest, and here is it saying Cooke is also of English origin http://www.houseofnames.com/Cooke-family-crest Peace out.Davido488 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cook and Cooke are variations on the same spelling as it happens. I see you've failed to note the previous comment. Ah well. Justin talk 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Of which Cooke is also a Surname of English origin as It is a subsidiary of the Old English coc, so your point is? Just face it I have more references all saying English origin, face it Cook is an English surname, James Cook is on the list of English people article, theres nothing you can do about it, loads of people in Scotland have English surnames its nothing unusual.Davido488 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANER

I've ran WikiCleaner through this and simplified a lot of redirects (piping them), so if there's any problems with them, just go-ahead and fix them.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Death of Cook image

• 
  By John Cleveley, unknown - depicting Cook in hand-to-hand combat with the Hawaiians (the current one used).
• 
  By Johann Zoffany, c. 1795 - depicting Cook injured on the ground.
• 
  By unknown, unknown - depicting Cook as a peacemaker.

The current image used to illustrate Cook's death is not the only one available, the other two I've found are of greater quality and Cook is seen more clearly on the Zoffany painting. So which one should be used? Personally I prefer the Zoffany painter. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The "unknown" image is clearly inferior, the other two are reasonably OK. At a pinch, I agree Zoffany is a clearer portrayal of the subject of the article. Euryalus (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to changing the image to the "Zoffany" painting? --George2001^hi 15:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --George2001^hi 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Murdered?

I really think the links to "People Murdered In Hawaii" and "British people murdered abroad" categories need to be removed. Not only do the links clearly espouse an imperialist perspective, but implying that Cook was "murdered" by the Hawaiians is ridiculous and racist. If that's the case, then every notable indigenous person who has died as a consequence of European or Western expansion needs to be listed as "murdered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.200.132 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you die at the hands of another person it is murder, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia - not a list of deaths, a list of tribal people who have died would be out-of-place here. You seem to suggest that Hawaiians can't commit murder, now that's racist. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have responded without being rude (e.g. linking to the murder article. I know what murder is, thanks) and putting words in my mouth, but clearly you have some sort of vested interest in this article and aren't willing to entertain other people's viewpoints. What I am suggesting is that Captain Cook died in a dispute between two parties from different nations, something that sounds a lot more like an act of war than an act of murder. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly have to accept that most deaths in war are not murder. If they are, the category "People Murdered In Hawaii" would have to include everyone who died at Pearl Harbour during the Japanese attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Since when was there a war between the Hawaiians & the Brits? Unless you mean to suggest a treacherous sneak attack...which probably involves George III & PM Lord North in a conspiracy.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (which seems to be favoured, because it is in the public domain) -

"... and thence made his way back to the Hawaiian group, which he had christened after his friend and patron Lord Sandwich, then head of the British admiralty (January 17th, 1779). Here he visited Maui and Hawaii itself, whose size and importance he now first realized, and in one of whose bays (Kealakekua) he met his death early in the morning of the 14th of February 1779. During the night of the 13th, one of the "Discovery's" boats was stolen by the natives; and Cook, in order to recover it, made trial of his favourite expedient of seizing the king's person until reparation should be made. Having landed on the following day with some marines, a scuffle ensued which compelled the party to retreat to their boats. Cook was the last to retire; and as he was nearing the shore he received a blow from behind which felled him to the ground. He rose immediately, and vigorously resisted the crowds that pressed upon him, but was soon overpowered."

That seems like murder to me, rather than a battle. --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to whose laws? Murder is a legal concept, with huge differences in its meaning between cultures. Unless it can be demonstrated that the Hawaiian's actions were "murder" under their laws, t's not the right word for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it goes under moral laws and the common use of the word as murder, they snuck-up on him and killed him. It wasn't like he was shot during a firefight, like Nelson was. It's comparable - in way to being stabbed by someone, he was just minding his own business.

Anyway, I don't see the difference between "murdered" and "killed" in this context. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems like I'm not the only person to disagree with you on the difference between "murdered" and "killed" in this context. And your belief that it's under "moral laws" that Cook was allegedly "murdered" is exactly the imperialist perspective that I'm talking about. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. While it may sound like I'm repeating myself, I must ask - Whose moral laws? HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't drag my beliefs into a discussion about the article; I regret the debate above, and I feel you are being hostile - You doing what I'd expect a Anti-Imperialist would do. I must admit that "murdered" is out-of-place, but what I'm arguing is that the negative perspective shouldn't be placed on Cook, like they killed him for a valid reson. Wikipedia is neutral. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't really sneak up on him either. He probably wasn't expecting it, but nevertheless it was in the middle of a hostile confrontation. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. Being told "Please don't drag my beliefs into a discussion about the article" by someone who commenced his previous post with "I believe..." Hmmmm. Anyway, yes, of course we should aim for neutrality. We should describe what happened with the least possible colour in the language. Words like killed are usually fine. Died, in a conflict with... can be OK too. Precise details, as described above, are obviously good too, so long as we're sure of them. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about my political beliefs, not my opinion on this article matter. --George2001hi (Discussion) 13:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and wasn't repling to HiLo48, it was to 71.33.200.132. I can understand the mix-up, annoying things - indents are. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have dragged your beliefs into this discussion if you hadn't written "I believe that it goes under moral laws and the common use of the word as murder." You're the one who started projecting your culture's own morality onto another, ancient culture with a different set of rules, which is exactly what the westerners that came to Hawai'i did. And you're right, I was being hostile, but considering your first response to me, you shouldn't have expected anything less. In any case, every statement you make supports my argument that you, or whoever else is vehemently maintaining this article, are projecting your personal beliefs and value judgements on the events that happened by linking to the aforementioned categories, thus negating a "neutral point-of-view." 71.33.200.132 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"projecting your culture's own morality onto another, ancient culture with a different set of rules" So you believe the Polynesians (which the Hawaiians were) had no concept of wrongful killing? Whatever name they gave it, I'm fairly sure they did. As for "unjustified", I'm not sure if Polynesians had the concept of "property". (Some Native American groups seem not to.) If not, "theft" may not have occured to them. The whole thing may have been a misunderstanding. That being true, "murder" may also be mis-stating. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on 71.33.200.132, what do you actually what changing - or is this a hate speech to Cook. --George2001hi (Discussion) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to both comments: TREKphiler, I'm not at all saying that the Polynesians had no concept of wrongful death. What I am saying is that I think it's a big leap to call it "murder." Remember, Cook's death did not occur until after he attempted to take the King hostage. The ancient Hawaiians could be, at times, a savage people and under the kapu system, sometimes an offense that we would view as relatively minor could be punishable by death (such as a commoner casting a shadow upon a chief). It's not unreasonable to believe that they were simply protecting their ruler. George2001hi I didn't understand the first part of your sentence, but I have no hatred for Cook. What I do have is a problem with calling Cook's death a "murder" by linking to the aforementioned categories. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'd say willfull killing is murder, however justified it might seem, outside a systematic act: that is, unless it's sanctioned by something like a court. (The right or wrong of death penalty is a separate issue.) This wasn't (as I understand it, anyhow), which makes it murder. It may've been based in a mistake by Cook & his men (& cultural sensitivity was no strong point for 18hC Brits, to be sure), but that doesn't excuse the Hawaiian response, however legitimate it might seem to them. (I'll agree, defense of their ruler is legit; use of lethal force when none was applied, IMO, isn't. I will, however, admit total ignorance of the kapu system.) Put it another way: is it OK for U.S. frontier settlers to kill Indians for stealing cattle? Even if the Indians routinely do it & have done for centuries, among themselves? Or is that murder? Or is it only murder if whites do it? Or only if it's done by a group that recognizes the concept? This isn't as simple as you're making it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It might help if one of you explains why one or both of you are so hell-bent on calling this killing (that rose out of a conflict in which both parties committed wrong acts) a "murder." If you really want to look at this from a legal standpoint, the act would most likely be classified as voluntary manslaughter with provcation. As I see it, it's only "murder" because you want to call it "murder." If one of the Hawaiians who participated in the boat theft or who was guarding the king were killed in the ensuing melee, I wouldn't be calling it "murder," either. I have a feeling that if the situation was the same and the roles of the two parties reversed, you (not you specifically, but the general "you") wouldn't be calling it "murder." 71.33.200.132 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For a start, how about unprovoked killing of Cook himself? Unless you mean to say he personally snatched the Hawaiian king, which I'd consider fantastic. Or the fact he appears to have been struck from behind, which, considering his rank, suggests stealth, which would suggest murder, rather than death in battle. (RN SOs aren't usually so exposed.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:30 & 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay - here's the roles reversed - I'm a British explorer, I travel to pre-explored Hawaii, I meet a chef and his people; then one night I discover immense hatred to one of the people, and kill them on their way back to their cabin/home. Now that still is murder. Cook was murdered under British law, and the described explorer was a murderer. Wikipedia is bias due to who writes it, it may only briefly cover a subject - that may in some groups be notable. It's just the way it goes. --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving?

Does anybody have any objection of me placing automatic archiving on this talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy and a lot of the discussions are fairly old. I was thinking of older than a 100 days and leaving the last 10 discussions. Which would be done by MiszaBot I.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --George2001hi (Discussion) 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a automatic index of the archives. --George2001^hi 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hypocrisy

If James Cook was Scottish, Welsh or Irish, he would be listed as such. But because hes English, he's identified as British? How is that fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.184 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is false. We have no evidence that he considered himself English first and British second. In the absence of that, we have to take the default position and say that, because he was representing the British government in the voyages for which he is famous, he is best described as a British explorer. It is not the case that people from Scotland/Wales/Ireland are automatically described as of Scottish/Welsh/Irish nationality; it's more likely than not, I agree, but we are always guided by their own self-identification, whatever it is, where it exists. We have no such statement from Cook. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

we have no evidence of what many historical figures identified themselves as. There was little distinction between "british" and "english" back then, they were interchangeable. But as always with Wikipedia, if you try describe Scots, Irish or Welsh as British, you would have the welsh, irish and scottish brigades on here demanding they are not. So why should only Englishman, have to be British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.72 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, your premise is false. Just take Category:British novelists, for example. It has 442 entries. Many of these people are/were indeed English, but by no means all of them. It includes people from the other parts of the UK who are described as "British". Then there's Category:English novelists (1,111 entries), Category:Irish novelists (216), Category:Scottish novelists (165), Category:Welsh novelists (91), and Category:Cornish novelists (5). Thats just novelists. The same distinctions would apply in any other field. This demonstrates that it is simply not true that Wikipedia never describes people from Scotland, Wales or Ireland as "British". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

your premise is false. This list is just a grouping. ive looked through it and not all are decribed as british in the opening sentence and vast majority, are either English or were born abroad. Some on that category you provided are even described as "Northern irish". So I will say again, if James Cook was Irish, Scottish, or Welsh, he would be described as such. Please stop this hypocrisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.72 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there has been no separate English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish nationalities since the Act of Union in 1707. This still applies and so the only relevant nationality for any of the citizens of these countries is British. This also applied for many of the former British territories such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc., in that before independence their citizens were also British subjects. In fact Australians didn't get separate citizenship, i.e., become non-British citizens, until as late as 1948.

As for what Cook regarded himself as, well he probably thought of himself as English, however he would have held a British passport if he had ever needed one, and legally he would have been regarded by any other countries that he passed through as British. Regarding oneself as English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish holds no legal value (and still doesn't today despite what some nationalists might prefer) and that is why there are no English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish passports.

The whole nationalities issue is a PITA on Wikipedia as everyone tries to claim 'ownership' of famous people - usually British ones. This is, in part, a legacy of the British Empire, and its far-ranging effects on the modern world, and, with the independence of the former colonies it is perhaps understandable that they should wish to claim 'credit' for that which was achieved by Britons from their own part of the world. And why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR reinstated in Cook's death

“Some scholars suggest that” calls for a {{who}} tag. “Cook may have inadvertently contributed to the tensions that ultimately brought about his demise” looks like speculation, which shouldn’t be here. An attempt at correcting this latter problem was reverted, claiming that it’s “verifiable”. If it’s “verifiable” surely it can be replaced with a reference. After all,“the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material” (emphasis added). --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is not attributed, I've removed it for now. It should only be replaced if it is supported by WP:RS per WP:V. As originally written it appears WP:OR through speculation. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments please

I suggest the addition of a sentence to the paragraph above the one which has been giving so much grief. Here's the full par with the suggested addition in bold italics.

After a month's stay, Cook got under sail again to resume his exploration of the Northern Pacific. However, shortly after leaving Hawaiʻi Island, the foremast of the Resolution broke and the ships returned to Kealakekua Bay for repairs. It has been hypothesised that the return to the islands by Cook's expedition was not just unexpected by the Hawaiians, but also unwelcome because the season of Lono had recently ended (presuming that they associated Cook with Lono and Makahiki). In any case, tensions rose and a number of quarrels broke out between the Europeans and Hawaiians. On 14 February at Kealakekua Bay, some Hawaiians took one of Cook's small boats. Normally, as thefts were quite common in Tahiti and the other islands, Cook would have taken hostages until the stolen articles were returned. Indeed, he attempted to take hostage the King of Hawaiʻi, Kalaniʻōpuʻu. The Hawaiians prevented this, and Cook's men had to retreat to the beach. As Cook turned his back to help launch the boats, he was struck on the head by the villagers and then stabbed to death as he fell on his face in the surf. It has been suggested that the incident was caused by one of Cook's "uncontrollable outbursts of temper, which had become increasingly noticeable during the voyage". Hawaiian tradition says that he was killed by a chief named Kalanimanokahoowaha. The Hawaiians dragged his body away. Four of the Marines with Cook were also killed and two wounded in the confrontation.

Moriori (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The quoted account starts off by saying that there was an "eerie atmosphere among the islanders following his return, and Cook's death after an argument on the beach was predictable if not preordained". For balance, this should also go in. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Otherwise a good piece of prose and much improved on the unreferenced text I removed. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree also. (And apologies for a lazy revert that led to the discussion - nothwithstanding the fact it has/will ultimately led to improved text - it has been a while since I made any substantive WP edits) Dick G (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong date of birth!!!

I think Captain Cook was born the 27th of october! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepetitcalmettois (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So does the ODNB, but it seems to be a question of Old Style and New Style dates. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In which case - and to avoid confusion - both dates should be displayed. My own brother is called James, named after Captain Cook, and born on 27th October. Francis Hannaway 17:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

Correction needs to be made in the first sentence of the second paragraph. It currently reads: "Cook joined the British merchant navy as a teenagerand..." A space is needed between "teenager" and "and" IAmTheWalrus89460 (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.0.64 (talk)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have made the correction. Keith D (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Itinerary

The map of Captain Cook's voyages appears to show him sailing through Bass Strait on his last journey (in blue). However Bass Strait was not discovered by Europeans until about 20 years later. Had Cook sailed through the strait unware? Regards, Jeff Stevenson 26th August 2011 (apologies if I have not posted this in the correct manner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.122.12 (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that.--Harkey (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I corrected the map image, as best I could. It needs more skilled attention, though.--Harkey (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems to have been an oversight by me - I checked the copies of maps I used and it looks like they went south past Tasmania. AlexiusHoratius 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the map. There is a link to the article on the Wikipedia Main Page today in On this day... section.--Harkey (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Cook thought it was just a bay, and didn't try to sail through it. They didn't realize Tasmania was an island. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I have nominated then withdrawn the article from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/James Cook. I investigated the article's sources much more thoroughly last night and realised that some of the books cited were less than scholarly. Also, the whole topic of James Cook, his voyages and legacy, on Wikipedia needs more careful consideration. We need separate articles about his second and third voyages as well as his legacy. Peer reviewers have been most helpful in making suggestions for improvements. Thank you to all for your constructive comments and edits--Harkey (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I Agree Similar to the discovery of the America's, which most modern historians will agree was re-discovered several times over, Cook being noted as first European to Hawaii is suspect. 200 years earlier Spanish explorers had been to said Islands, plotted their latitudes, and mapped the Islands. They interacted with the indigenous culture there at that time, and they left artifacts of their voyages on the Islands for Cook et.al. to see years later. Check histories of one Captain Diego Hurtado de Mendoz -- Spanish navigators more than two centuries before Cook saw them, and that knowledge carefully concealed from all other people by the Spanish Government, whose jealous and national policy was to selfishly prevent Spanish explorations and discoveries in the Pacific Ocean from becoming generally known. In the history of Captain Cook's third and last voyage it is related that the ships of his expedition, on leaving Christmas Island, steered to the north and westward, and on the 18th of January, 1778, at daybreak, they first sighted one island, and, soon after, another. The first land-fall subsequently proved to be the island of Oahu, and the second, Kauai, both portions of the Hawaiian group. Captain Cook anchored his ships in the Bay of Waimea, on the south side of the island of Kauai, and at that place his free and amicable communication with the natives first commenced. Some pieces of iron were then observed among the islanders, and great avidity was shown by them to procure more of this metal from Cook's officers. He thereupon erroneously concluded that the natives had never seen Europeans before, as they seemed to him unacquainted with any foreign article except iron, which metal, he argued, they might have obtained from Spanish vessels wrecked on the coast of New Spain or Mexico during the past two hundred years, fragments of which may have drifted to Hawaii. Helmets, resembling in form those of ancient Romans, and feather cloaks, similar in shape to those worn in Europe in the seventeenth century, were also seen among the natives. Both articles, as it is now believed, were rude copies of some similar ones originally introduced among the islanders by shipwrecked Spaniards. No iron of any kind exists in the soil or rocks of these islands, and such pieces of iron, with a knowledge of their use, could only have come from some kind of foreign intercourse with a nation of civilized artisans. more "the Californians Vol 2" published in 1880 by Charles Frederick Holder. http://books.google.com/books?id=88AUAAAAYAAJ&dq=editions%3AUCALB200246&source=gbs_similarbooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldwolf (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii Article

Is anybody interested in helping me create an article on his voyages just to Hawaii specifically? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am already working on the third voyage and I have most of the books mentioned in the bibliography, so would be glad to help. Do you mean just his visits to Hawaii, missing out the other parts of the third voyage?--Harkey (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah just his visit to Hawaii, so it would be a sub-article of your article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Just point the way, when you are ready.--Harkey (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Will be OK if there is sufficient material for another article. Keith D (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite a lot has been written about Cook's visits to Hawaii, particularly the 2nd/3rd but some is quite speculative and some controversial in the extreme. Cook's own log ends abruptly, a while before his last landing, and some parts of the account mysteriously disappeared when they were back in London so it might be difficult to write a neutral account. There are also vast swamps of cultural issues to be negotiated.--Harkey (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...maybe noting the effects he had on the Hawaiians and interaction he had with each chiefs of the different islands, also a section devoted to the names he gave to each islands and other things.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is that article of the third voyage you were talking about? Third voyage of James Cook redirects to this page.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put the section from this article into my sandbox to act as a framework for the third voyage article and I'm researching the content at the moment. That's why I have all the books. I intend to make this article the summary article to hang the others on. --Harkey (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Third voyage of James Cook is now in mainspace. Have you started creating the article about his voyages just to Hawaii?--Harkey (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I don't have much spare time at hand and your article sufficiently covers the topic.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wife

Is there anything notable to mention about his wife? What happen to her while he was at sea and what happen to her after his death? It probably wouldn't be worthy of an article but it should be included in the family part of the article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a little more about his wife in some books.She had a pension from the government and lived on for 50 odd years after his death. She destroyed all Cook's letters to her. Again, much that is written tends to be speculative rather than fact.--Harkey (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Still interesting to note in my opinion. Also did any of his children amount to anything, those that grew up to adulthood that is?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Dismasting

I removed this:

"=== Debate ===

"Captain James Cook was representative of English attitudes in the eighteenth century. His voyages took place in the midst of 18th century debates about the ennobling or corrupting influence of Western civilization, yet examination of Cook's journals reveal that he was not much interested in the idea of the Noble savage. When, in the 19th century, there was discussion of the motives of navigators and explorers, Joseph Conrad contrasted Cook's "scientific" motives with the "acquisitive" motives of earlier generations of explorers. He does not, however, deny the influence of culture in shaping personal motives. The costs for Cook's three voyages were borne by the British government within a framework of objectives that had to stand up to taxpayer scrutiny. In the 20th century, Cook's achievements, and in particular the circumstances surrounding his death, have become the subject of scholarly debate. There are those who believe, with Moorehead, whose book The Fatal Impact(1966) "..is a requiem for an idyllic past, moving in its picture of a wild civilization slowly eroding under the impact of commercial progress or geographical expansion...", that Western civilization brought a depressing train of consequences: venereal disease, alcohol and firearms. At the heart of the debate that Moorehead's book fuelled, was how to understand the rationality of indigenous people. Gananath Obeyesekere in The Apotheosis Of Captain Cook : European Mythmaking In The Pacific, (1992), insisted that indigenous people thought in essentially the same way as Westerners and was concerned that any argument otherwise would paint them as 'irrational' and 'uncivilized'. Marshall Sahlins, on the other hand, in How "Natives" Think: About Captain Cook, for Example (1995) argued that indigenous cultures and ways of thinking were distinct from those of the West."

because it appears to me to be tangential to Cook, & an excuse to comment on sociological issues having only scant connection to Cook. The rationality or mode of thought of natives, then or now, has little to do with Cook AFAI can tell. The motivation of HMG bears more on the policy of the PM at the time than Cook, as does the willingness (or not) to pay. Nor AFAIK was Cook involved in the debate over why to go or how to pay for it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite right, yet his name has been brought into the political debate. Readers should be allowed to make their own judgements about the validity of that.--Harkey (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I make no judgement, nor offer any. I merely mean, if the issue of Cook's influence (or lack of same) is to be discussed, it be discussed on a page about the broader issue in which context his actions are considered. Which, I suggest, is not this one. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Two recent books,The Death of Captain Cook: A Hero Made and Unmade (Profiles in History) (2009), by Glyn Williams, and Captain Cook: Master of the Seas (2011), by Frank McLynn, both include a discussion of the debate. For completeness, it needs to be included in the Legacy section of this article. A peer reviewer also suggested that it should be included.--Harkey (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't oppose a mention of it. As much as above still strikes me as over the top on a page about Cook, & not about the debate itself. Something along the lines of, "Cook has been the subject of (or "center of") debate about views of European & aboriginal cultural values (or "norms")." Add mention of the two books. Much past that is too OT, IMO. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have modified and replaced some of the text. The heading has been changed to Debates as there are four areas (or strands) of debate mentioned. They are of 18th, 19th, mid-20th and late-20th century vintage. Of course, the consequences of the expeditions had an enormous cultural, religious, economic and political impact on the Southern Pacific region itself. Contact with the European colonial powers led to radical changes in the traditional ways of life of the Pacific peoples, yet I have tried to be as neutral as possible by just mentioning the tenor of subsequent debates and their main protagonists. If readers are interested they can follow links, citations, etc., if not, they have at least been made aware that such debate exists.--Harkey (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's much better. Not only more on-topic, but more interesting. I now know the debate goes back farther than I did before, too. Nicely done. One question in that regard: was this an issue contemporary with Cook? I'm finding mention of the cost a bit non seq, so if there was criticisim of it at the time, & it can be connected to the broader issue, it would be useful. Otherwise, I'd suggest taking that out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cook's secret orders were, after observing the transit of venus: "Whereas the making Discoverys of Countries hitherto unknown, and the Attaining a Knowledge of distant Parts which though formerly discover’d have yet been but imperfectly explored, will redound greatly to the Honour of this Nation as a Maritime Power, as well as to the Dignity of the Crown of Great Britain, and may tend greatly to the advancement of the Trade and Navigation thereof;"(my italics). Although Cook himself may have had his own personal ambitions, motives and ideals, other stakeholders such as the King, the Royal Society and the Admiralty each has their input as well. In no way does this detract from Cook's achievements in carrying out the tasks: it simply shows that there were flaws in the 19th century arguments about the voyages being purely scientifically motivated. The King gave £4,000 towards the costs, the Admiralty provided the ships and the Royal Society paid the scientists.--Harkey (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the "Debates" section again. It is basically a cobbled-together piece of original analysis which has little to do with Cook's career and doesn't deserve inclusion in an article like this.

• If Cook wasn't interested in the "noble savage" concept, why mention it?
• Conrad's point of view is mildly interesting, but not that important. He was a writer, not a scholar.
• The reference to "taxpayer scrutiny" is anachronistic. The ordinary taxpayer had no say, and there is no evidence given that there was any debate about costs. In any case, there is no way of denying the scientific motivation for Cook's voyages, particularly the first one.
• The reference to Moorehead has very little to do with Cook as such. This belongs in an article about the settlement of Australia.
• The discussion about native mentality again is tangential. The fact that people bandy about the name "Captain Cook" does not warrant including their opinions in this article.

Given the status that Cook has, it would be appropriate to have some critical reflection about his legacy. But this isn't it! We need a solid secondary source that says things that are actually relevant to Cook. Or nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read:'As befits our age, there are no more heroes': reassessing Captain Cook' by Glyndwr Williams in "Captain Cook. Explorations and Reassessments" Edited by Glyndwr Williams. Boydell Press. Woodbridge,Suffolk. 2004. Glyn Williams is Emeritus Professor of History, Queen Mary, University of London.--Harkey (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the negatives of Cook's influence in the Pacific and his impact on colonization and the native population needs to be mention. For example a similiar figure Christopher Columbus' article mentions his negative impacts.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, why not have a section under "Legacy" entitled "Colonisation" which explains how his exploration led to settlement of Australia etc? If Glyn Williams has something worthwhile to say, why not just put in the article? But, in any case, I don't see how the long-rage "negative impacts" are an appropriate topic in this article. Surely Cook can be criticised for what he did, but not for what other people did decades later? Otherwise, we are engaging in a crass abuse of history in which Cook and Columbus are merely used as straw-men for ideological target practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Error in the second voyage on the map?

At the left-hand side of the map, two green lines end. They connect to two green lines which end at the right-hand side of the map. However, there is a third green line at the right-hand side of the map (in the south) which does not connect to a green line at the left-hand side. This is confusing.

The reason seems to be the omission of the arc which Cook described in 1775 by first crossing the longitude of Cape of Good Hope from west to east, south of the Cape, and then going to the north and back to the west and then arriving at the Cape. I use the maps in James Cook, "The Journals", Penguin, 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arie ten Cate (talk • contribs) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version that generally corrects it, I think. You may have to bypass your cache to see it. AlexiusHoratius 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following line to the External Links section of the page:

• Animation of the circumnavigation of North Island, New Zealand in Google Earth.

NetKingCol (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The animation doesn't seem to work without manual "nudges". When working, the ship model follows the coast in an oblique, panoramic view. I tried the "Tolaga Bay to Cape Runaway" section, but it didn't seem instructive, in the strict encyclopedic sense. It discombobulated my graphics display (which may, of course, be a failure at this end), which I have yet to resolve. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Old Moonraker, I'm sorry you had some difficulty in running the animation. Please could you elaborate on the 'manual nudges' that you needed to make and I will see if I need to change anything. Of course, the potential user needs to have Google Earth installed, and it helps if they already know how to play a Tour in that program.

You suggest: "it didn't seem instructive, in the strict encyclopaedic sense", but that is not its purpose; my request to make this an External Link on the James Cook page is to offer enrichment, not extension, of the information that Wikipedia supplies. The soundtrack to the animation is an audio rendition of Cook's journal and is, therefore, close to being original source material; I suggest that many people would find that instructive, especially if it dispels any preconceived ideas about Cook's attitude towards the aboriginal people he met in New Zealand. NetKingCol (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion; if/when there's consensus if an edit is required, please re-request with {{edit semi-protected}}, thanks  Chzz  ►  22:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: it doesn't run at all now. From memory, it was necessary to open a folder and select a file to run, rather than have it play through. That's when my screen display started to break up. You are safe in assuming that I don't know how to run a tour in Google Earth, but should I need to? WP:EL requires that "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given". As regards "enrichment": I couldn't see much enrichment in seeing a model ship passing in front of an ill-defined coastline worked up by "tilting" in software a lo-def aerial photograph. it's clever (when it works), but it's not particularly enriching to this encyclopedia user, but please bear in mind that, possibly, I wasn't seeing it as its best. Sorry, but you did ask.

And: the screen menu bar has just broken up again, as I write. Just time to refer you to WP:ELNO #16 before going going away to re-boot—damn! --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the title of the link (Animation...New Zealand in Google Earth) is "an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content" and the link would be followed, by and large, by people who knew what to expect. However, this discussion is taking up too much time and energy; I'm only an occasional visitor here who is trying to make a contribution, so please feel free to close off this edit request if you really think it has no value, but I would prefer it if we could have a second opinion, perhaps from somebody who does know about Google Earth and whose screen is discombobulation-free (I've run the tour successfully on three different computers - albeit all Windows machines). NetKingCol NetKingCol (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

By chance I had used Google Earth earlier that day, in establishing co-ordinates for this edit—discombobulation was completely absent. I'm definitely not pointing any fingers in accusation here but, as the old English proverb has it, if there's a fish in your beer you can suspect someone's been watering it down! --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at some of these communications I have received from Google Earth users and make your own decision of whether or not to include my proposed external link edit on this page. Other people seem to like the presentation and don't have the problems you are experiencing with your technology.

1) Mickey Mellen, curator of the Google Earth Blog, wrote in a private email: Colin -- Those two Google Earth files you posted today (James Cook and Immortal Chess) are great! I write for Google Earth Blog and would like to feature both of them on our site.

...and he introduced the blog post with: Colin Hazlehurst has put together an amazing tour of Cook's circumnavigation...

2) A Master Guide-Moderator in the Google Earth Community forums commented: Great tour, mentioned in Google+ Here: (https://plus.google.com/u/0/107452474362850203177/posts)

3) NormB of Christchurch, New Zealand commented: Nice tours... Well done

4) Paul van Dinther of planetinaction.com wrote: Hi Colin, your work caught my attention on the Google Earth blog post. Immediately loaded your tour, of course, and enjoyed the way you told the story.

5) KL wrote in a private email: I'm a Kiwi currently studying in (redacted)... I'd like to say Thankyou!! for the Captain Cook Google Earth animation... I've read a lot of this history, but never understood it as I do now... Brilliant! My girlfriend has also been glued to the story for the past few days - and now she's desperate to go there - even more brilliant!! :) So thanks, I think every Kiwi school should be watching this story unfold :) Do you have plans to continue with the South Island? Again, really, really, really very many thanks,

NetKingCol (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anybody there? NetKingCol (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

If you look at the third line of the first paragraph under the heading First Voyage (1768-1771) a clause reads: 'where the observations of the Venus Transit was made'. Please change this to 'where the observations of the Venus Transit were made'. I suspect the proof-reader's eye was distracted by the hyperlink. NetKingCol (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Done - (not sure if 'observation' or 'observations' is correct, but switched to 'were' as it currently reads 'observations'.) AlexiusHoratius 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

'observations' is correct; James Cook, Dr. Solander, and Mr. Green observed the transit of Venus on Tahiti, while Lieutenant Gore, Dr. Monkhouse, and Mr. Sporing took the long boat to York Island to make observations there, and Lieutenant Hicks, Mr. Clark, Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Saunders 'went away in the pinnace to the eastward, with orders to fix upon some convenient situation upon this island, and there to observe the transit of Venus...' (taken from Cook's journal 01Jun1769 and 02Jun1769) NetKingCol (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2012

Middlesbrough is in Teeside not Yorkshire 87.112.178.34 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: well, yes, but just follow this link and read the first sentence: "within the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Teeside was not around in 1700s which is the timeframe for the article. Keith D (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

middlesbrough is not in yorkshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.170.56 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Middlesbrough is in the Ceremonial county of Yorkshire which is roughly the area of the ancient county which existed when Cook lived there.--Harkey (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nathaniel Dance-Holland

At the time Dance made his painting of Cook he was just Nathaniel Dance; he painted professionally only under this name. When he took the name Holland (he did not use Dance-Holland), on 4 July 1800, he had given up professional portraiture. To save the article from this slightly over-scrupulous anachronism I'm proposing to RV this wholly good-faith edit. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference to colonisation

There is a bit of a discussion going on with reference to the last sentence in the introduction. <br"However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate." /> I am not sure how this adds to the entry on Cook, it seems more of a personal point of view. I note that this is unreferenced, but then I am sure one could find just as many references to support or deny this hypothesis. My own belief is that Cook himself played virtually no part in the colonisation, short of reporting the islands some of which were unknown to the British Crown. This sentence further seems to indicate that colonisation has had a negative effect on the indigenous people. I would propose that this sentence be removed. Brain696 (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would belong in an article on colonisation, or on impact of Europeans on indigenous people, etc, but not here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. To put this in context we must include the preceding sentence and consider both as an entity. Namely:

"He left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge which was to influence his successors well into the 20th century and numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him. However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate."

Right, if the second sentence is unreferenced per Brain696, then so is the first. If Brain696 thinks it seems more like a POV, then let him demonstrate it. Let Brain696 give sources here for his POV claim that "Cook himself played virtually no part in the colonisation" of the Pacific. Let Brain696 explain why it is wrong to say "his role" (Cook's) in colonisation has "been the subject of both political and scholarly debate". Let Brain696 quote the actual passage in the sentence which "seems to indicate that colonisation has had a negative effect on the indigenous people". Then, let Brain696 provide here evidence for the first sentence which states Cook "left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge which was to influence his successors well into the 20th century ".

If Cook influenced scientific and geographic knowledge (first sentence) he also influenced colonisation of the Pacific (second sentence) and it would be a travesty to remove either point from the article. If one goes through lack of referencing then so must the other. Moriori (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Both assertions referred to can be referenced to the book: "Captain Cook. Explorations and Reassessments" Edited by Glyndwr Williams. Boydell Press. Woodbridge,Suffolk. 2004 ISBN:1843831007, pages 230-245.--Harkey _Talk 15:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

@Moriori Nicely put. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to start a flame war Moriori, so please try not to attack me personally. It is MY opinion that Cook played little part in any colonisation, and I have no intention of putting that in the entry. My opinion is based in part on the idea that if Cook is running around finding hitherto places unknown to the Crown, then when does he find time to colonise the same places? The Wikipedia entry on colonisation says Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations. I agree that if the first sentence can not be referenced it too should be removed, however further down in Cooks entry it does seem to support these assertions. I do agree with you to the extent that it could be argued that the uninhabited islands that Cook discovered he did contribute to the colonisation, the already colonised lands he visited he played very little part in. In the case of Cook, and based on Wikipedias own definition, I believe the sentence should be removed. Brain696 (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

QUOTE: "....please try not to attack me personally.....". Get a grip. Moriori (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing that Cook didn't personally colonized any of the islands but the entry is not stating that Cook did the colonizing himself; he had a lasting influence and legacy in the later colonization (Imperialism/Conquest in the case of the already inhabited islands) of the region, and one negative thing that his crew personally did was pass diseases to the natives and kill many of the many of those they encountered.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is about colonisation, not about Imperialism/Conquest don't confuse the two. I guess the first question one must ask is what is the colonising that Cook undertook? Off the top of my heard I don't actually know of any island(s) he discovered, but I expect someone will put me right on this matter. If he hasn't actually found any islands he can't have colonised any! Most islands in the Pacific that Cook visited had already been colonised by Polynesians, Micronesians, and Melanesians. I would expect Kavebear that Cook and/or his crew did bring disease to the native inhabitants, (I would be supprised if they hadn't) and it is documented that his crew did on occasion kill locals (though I am not sure that Cook personally did) but this has nothing to do with colonisation. Brain696 (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay forget about imperialism/conquest then. Colonization still applies. For example the article Colonization of Africa is not one about apes turning into humans billions of years ago and discovering it; so your statement that colonization can't happen in a region already discovered and inhabited by natives doesn't make sense. Colonization and discovery are two different things. He didn't personally colonized. He opened the region to later colonization by other people. Colonization, especially European colonization brought disease, death and destructions to natives around the world. That was his legacy. This would be a stupid article, if everyone followed your guidlines and only included things he did personally from 1728 to 1779.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kavebear, I don't quite follow you. You now seem to be confusing colonisation with evolution over the last few millions (not billions) of years. You are correct, colonisation and discovery are different things and Wikipedia says 'Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations' Cook did none of this, that is indisputable. Now if you want to talk about European imperialism/conquest you are correct when you state that this brought "disease, death and destructions" (sic), though you might want to add literacy, science, medicine, democracy, increase in lifespan, abolishment of slavery, abolishment of cannibalism etc. Don't just choose the bad (and I agree there are bad points) of European colonisation. My point is that you need to be objective, and not let your own POV and/or prejudices be incorporated in to the entry. Can you tell me how Cook opened up the areas of the Pacific to colonisation? Is it just by reporting on the location of where these islands were located? If this is so then it would seem to me to be a fairly weak argument, and you yourself agree with this when you said above that "Colonization and discovery are two different things". Brain696 (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep arguing that Cook didn't personally did the colonization, that is already an establish fact by both of us that he didn't colonize any place personally. I am saying he left an legacy by which others began the process of colonization...Looking back on the sentence we are all arguing about, "However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate", it can be interpret by readers as negative effects or positive effects, so I don't see any prejudice or POV; I was merely using extremes to state my point. Also note this line, "In New Zealand the coming of Cook is often used to signify the onset of colonisation."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK then we are all agreed that Cook didn't do any colonising. My question is what was his part in opening up areas of the Pacific to Colonisation? Are you arguing that by telling other people the location of these islands he is culpable? IMHO this seems a fairly tenuous link. Or did Cook himself have an ongoing part in the subsequent subjugation and colonisation? Brain696 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New twist: There are multiple references that Cook claimed some lands he discovered for the British crown. Key word some, I don't know what but you can easily look it up on wikipedia and the internet which mentions a few including Australia and New Zealand. If that isn't colonialism or an act that opens the way for later colonization, I don't know what.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Brain696 You are actually taking part in a debate which you claim does not exist. The sentence:

However, his role in opening areas of the Pacific to colonisation and its subsequent effects on indigenous peoples have been the subject of both political and scholarly debate.

simply states that a debate about his role exists. --Harkey _Talk 18:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed, for two reasons. First, it is uncited. Second, the lead should summarise the body of the article, and this statement (while possibly true) is not expanded on in the article. The first part of the sentence is expanded (and referenced) in the article body so doesn't need a reference in the lead. Adpete (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. There should be some kind of statement about Cook's legacy in the body of the article, but that's what it needs to be, not some vague mention of colonism. I don't really understand the point of the above discussion. Cook's discovery of the east Coast of Australia in 1770 did lead to the British settlement of Australia in 1788. His exploration of the South Pacific was under orders from the British Royal Navy and did have the aim of expanding the British Empire and forestalling any French imperial ambitions. This is universally acknowledged, and is an important part of his legacy. There is no debate on that point.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition: Ethnographic Collections

Hello,

I have added the first paragraph of the recently created article 'The Cook Collection: The Australian Museum.' I inserted this under the new heading 'Ethnographic Collections,' within the existing legacy header. I also added a photograph relevant to collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver James Perkins (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have also placed a link in the {{Captain James Cook}} template. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2012

The Captain Cook Society has a new website. The url of the homepage changed to http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ The currect URL is being redirected but this is only temporary. By HolonCom, Hosting the CCS website.

Rsiera (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Death

Captain James Cook died February 14, 1779 (aged 50) in Kealakekua Bay, Hawaii

Hollywog (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Local Pilots Employed By Captain James Cook

Thank you for the excellent resource.

The following section from the existing article has an omission.

EXISTING (as of March 7, 2012): Cook's aptitude for surveying was put to good use mapping the jagged coast of Newfoundland in the 1760s, aboard HMS Grenville. He surveyed the northwest stretch in 1763 and 1764, the south coast between the Burin Peninsula and Cape Ray in 1765 and 1766, and the west coast in 1767. At this time Cook employed local pilots to point out the "rocks and hidden dangers" along the south and west coasts. During the 1765 season, four pilots were engaged at 4 shillings a day 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." [14]

PROPOSED INCLUSION: Grand Banks derives its name from the circumstance of its having the appearance of a beautiful green bank. It has been inhabited about 180 years. Mr. Jonathan Hickman, the oldest inhabitant, died in 1848, at the advanced age of 100 years. He piloted the celebrated Captain Cooke along this part of the coast during the time he surveyed the coast of Newfoundland 100 years ago.

There are many sources, however one which I can provide is "NEWFOUNDLAND AS IT WAS, AND AS IT IS IN 1877 BY: THE REV. PHILIP TOCQUE, A. M.,".

C2C2C — Preceding unsigned comment added by C2C2C (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Source request on 28 February 2014

The last sentence in the introduction:

"He raped his children after coming to Australia."

It is a joke or a fact? I think this claim could need a credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.219.43.14 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That was vandalism, and was automatically reverted by Cluebot less than a minute later. --Avenue (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

The vandalism in the first paragraph still exists.

110.20.186.74 (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, I've done a WP:PURGE of the page which seems to have fixed the problem.--Melburnian (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

In the "third voyage" section, please remove the sentence "The Bering Strait proved to be impassable, although he made several attempts to sail through it." This is not correct. Please replace that sentence with the following:

"By the second week of August 1778 Cook was through the Bering Strait, sailing into the Chukchi Sea. He headed north-east up the coast of Alaska until he was blocked by sea ice. His furthest north was 70 degrees 44 minutes. Cook then sailed west to the Siberian coast, and then south-east down the Siberian coast back to the Bering Strait. By early September 1778 he was back in the Bering Sea to begin the trip to the Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands."

Sources: Beaglehole, John Cawte (1974). The Life of Captain James Cook. A & C Black. ISBN 0-7136-1382-3. Pages 615-27.

Pjgormely (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

When is education in the pacific first discovered by missionaries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.120.8.127 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

This is an edit request for the Voyages section. Some of the facts about his voyages got a little mixed up. The purpose of Cook's first voyage did not include testing Harrison's clock, H4 in the quest for longitude. He did have it on his second and third voyages. This information is easily accessible in any of the biography's about Cook and the main Wikipedia articles for each of his voyages.

Maplibrarian (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Marcy B.

First animal

The article makes the claim "The first animal to circumnavigate the globe was a goat" and until a recent edit this read "female" not "animal". The claim seems dubious either way. Ignoring that humans are animals, I'd be very surprised if there weren't rats on Magellan's ships, and perhaps some early circumnavigators had ship's cats to keep the rats under control (so the goat may not have been the first animal deliberately brought). The claim might boil down to "the first documented animal...".-gadfium 22:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually human beings are NOT animals - we are mammals, if that's what you mean. Science does not classify humans as animals. Indeed, we give the name "animals" to the animals, created civilization, etc. 68.19.5.12 (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But all mammals are animals...and the fact that we named them and created civilization doesn't change that. What do you mean by this? -- JosueGSMST

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Endeavor 3D Printable model featured on Thingiverse.com

Thought I would mention that The Endeavor ship is featured on Thingiverse for 3D Printing.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:478422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancorrigan1 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request, re: "Les Nouveaux voyages du capitaine Cook"

I was curious about the recently added image File:Nvx_voyages_du_capitaine_Cook_Ill.80.jpg, which is captioned as coming from the 1983 book "Les Nouveaux voyages du capitaine Cook". The picture looked so odd, and the cited author is an artist rather than a historian, so I wondered if it was a fictional re-imagining of Captain Cook rather than a historical image. After some digging, I was able to ascertain that the top part of the image, at least, is cropped from a 1784 engraving based on Cook's artist John Webber: File:A_Man_of_the_Sandwich_Islands_in_a_Mask_by_John_Webber,published_by_Nical_and_Cadell,_London,_England,_ca_1784.jpg. Apparently it's a makini, a Hawaiian gourd mask. I haven't been able to find the source of the lower half of the "Nouveaux Voyages" montage image, though.

In light of that, I think it might be better to replace the montage image from "Les Nouveaux Voyages" with the original source, the 1784 engraving image, in order to provide more historical context about that image. --202.78.240.7 (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Likely error

This article states, under the "memorials" section that "The site where he was killed in Hawaii was marked in 1874 by a white obelisk set on 25 square feet (2.3 m2) of chained-off beach." However, I believe the area is actually 25 feet SQUARE. These are two very different things, Twenty five feet square is actually 625 square feet. Twenty five square feet would be an area five feet by five feet. The metric equivalent is wrong as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radeichler (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Every photo shows the fenced area is clearly much bigger than 25 square fee (2.3m2), so I suspect your theory about the size is correct. However, I cannot find a source that discusses the size of the fenced-off area, but there are plenty of sources that say the monument is 27 feet high. So I suggest we removing the size of the fenced area and add the height of the monument with citation. Kerry (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605124552/http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/MuseumsAndHeritage/LocalHistoryResources/Documents/Infosheet22JamesCookDickTurpin.pdf to http://www.lbbd.gov.uk/MuseumsAndHeritage/LocalHistoryResources/Documents/Infosheet22JamesCookDickTurpin.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070421232853/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/package/30/links-cook.php to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/upload/package/30/links-cook.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Endeavour.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610033909/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Discovery.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/Discovery.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001060533/http://www.mtcooknz.com/mackenzie/Mount_Cook/ to http://www.mtcooknz.com/mackenzie/Mount_Cook/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606103401/http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/corral/adm55/adm55_index.html to http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/corral/adm55/adm55_index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Internal link to Siege of Quebec

The entry currently says "He saw action in the Seven Years' War, and subsequently surveyed and mapped much of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River during the siege of Quebec." The link to the siege of Quebec takes the reader to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Quebec_(1775) whereas it should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Plains_of_Abraham Regards, Ian Boreham, Editor, Captain Cook Society108.171.128.172 (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting the problem. I have made the change. Keith D (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814135925/http://www.coinsite.com/content/Commemoratives/Hawaii.asp to http://www.coinsite.com/content/commemoratives/Hawaii.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815030647/http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html to http://rgssamachupicchu.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/action-off-cartagena.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2017

Jame Cook was born 27 October 81.229.74.247 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: 27 October is his birthdate in the Old Style calender, which is already noted in the article. See Old Style and New Style dates for more information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130407143428/http://britain.docuwat.ch/videos/empire/captain-cook-obsession-discovery-part-1-of-4 to http://britain.docuwat.ch/videos/empire/captain-cook-obsession-discovery-part-1-of-4

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Point of View

In the third paragraph, the following sentence is a notorious point of view: "He displayed a combination of seamanship, superior surveying and cartographic skills, physical courage and an ability to lead men in adverse conditions." It should be replaced for quotes of recognition about James Cook by identified sources (i.e. historicians, other captains, etc.). 2800:810:463:111:981:5525:E315:F33E (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)CaptainHBouchard

"Attacked and killed."

There are, as noted in another entry here, many versions of the battle in which Cook was killed. In almost of them, including in the current version on this page, Cook either had or was trying to abduct Kalani'opu'u. I would argue it is inaccurate but in any event it is internally inconsistent to describe him as having been "attacked" while trying to kidnap someone. "He was killed" seems like the right language here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.107.159 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

First voyage

The existing text says: "In 1766, the Admiralty engaged Cook to command a scientific voyage to the Pacific Ocean. The purpose of the voyage was to observe and record the transit of Venus across the Sun for the benefit of a Royal Society inquiry into a means of determining longitude." Surely this is wrong on two counts. The observations of Venus were for establishing the scale of the Solar System, not for finding longitude, and Cook was appointed to the voyage in 1768 not 1766. Is the reference wrong or has someone misread it? Skeptic2 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I checked the reference and it is right. Some Wikipedia editor couldn't read. I have now corrected the text. Skeptic2 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"Cook would receive a one hundred guinea gratuity"

Is it possible to give this some context? Compared to his regular pay, todays money, or something. What could you buy with it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It is roughly equivalent to a sum of £15,000 today in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)