Talk:James Cook/Archive 3

The "Legacy" section, subsection "Memorials", states: "A life-size statue of Cook upon a column stands in a park in the centre of Sydney."

That there is a prominent statue of him raises the question of why it has been erected. An answer to that question is given on the plinth. That answer has recently been the subject of heated contention, which has seemed to me to be eminently deserving of inclusion. Accordingly, on 19 February 2018 I added:

its inscription "Discovered this territory 1770" has been challenged as rendering Aboriginal history invisible.^[1][2][3]

The objection appears to be: since there were people already living there, to say that Cook "discovered" (was the first person to come upon and report) the place is false; since it is well known that people were already living there, this claim is a lie; and, because that involves a pretence that this population were not really human beings, so that their knowledge does not count, it is a racist lie.

I have formulated this against the background of the terra nullius debate, which gives the objection to the Cook statue added significance. (I am concerned with the objection and not with any method of its expression.)

User Benkenobi18 has repeatedly reverted my changes, with contentions that appear to me to be unconstructive. Below are Benkenobi18's contentions, with my responses to them (in italics) when I have reinstated the material. The material is currently not included, following Benkenobi18's most recent reversion.

• 17 March 2018: Let's just remove that modern chaff from this otherwise excellent article.
• 17 March 2018: The material notes an important current controversy
• 21 March 2018: Uh, no it doesn't. It contributes exactly zero to Captain Cook's biography. Modern issues don't have a place here.
• 21 March 2018: This is a biographical dispute, about how far Cook was a discoverer
• 11 April 2018: Which of course he was.
• 11 April 2018: Cook did not discover Australia, because it was already inhabited; kindly, as to fact, desist
• 12 April 2018: Your issue is not with Cook. Your issue is with every explorer in every page in the Wikipedia. restoring the earlier version which is correct.

The relevant questions here, I think, are:

1. Did Cook discover the area that is now Sydney?
2. Is the claim that he did so, including dispute over it, relevant to his legacy?

The answers seem clearly to be, respectively: No and Yes.

Other users' views are invited. Wikiain (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the wording of the inscription is wrong, it's not really relevant to the existence of the statue. And that's what that section of the article is about. The debate over that inscription belongs somewhere else, not in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you HiLo48. It's detracting from an otherwise fantastic article and has zero to do with the biography of Captain Cook. I took it out because it contributed nothing.Benkenobi18 (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is not the place to right great wrongs. If the incident ("heated contention") is notable, write an article about it. However, this article should not be used to substitute for the lack of an article on another topic. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As Pterry observed, just living there doesn't count, you have to wear the correct trousers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We need to describe the debate over the description of him as the discoverer - there is a major literature on Cook and how his discoveries eventually led to his demise at the hands of those whom he had "discovered".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Published on 19 March 2018 is Mark McKenna (history professor), Moment of Truth: History and Australia’s Future (Quarterly Essay, RRP $22.99). Wikiain (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The aboriginal population of Australia had little or no knowledge of the outside word therefore Cook may reasonably be described as the 'discoverer' at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

In addition, the aborigines had no map or chart making of any kind, nor did they possess any form of writing, thus what knowledge of the Australian continent they possessed was limited to that which could be communicated by word of mouth. The first maps and charts of the continent were in fact made by people like Cook, and these maps and charts, along with his reports, were published and made available to anyone within Britain and elsewhere who wished to read them.

The aborigines may well have known about the various locations within Australia but they didn't tell anyone about it other than each other. And if it hadn't been for people like Cook, Vancouver, Van Diemen, Tasman, etc, no-one outside of the continent would ever have heard of the place. No-one was stopping the Australian Aborigines, etc., from building ships and exploring the rest of the world but the fact is, they didn't. Europe OTOH, did, and it was people like Cook, Vancouver, et al who brought knowledge of Australia to the rest of the world.

If 'discovered' is too distasteful for some then simply stating that he helped open up Australia to the outside world may suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You have come across an old discussion, one which describes something that is no longer an issue for the article. Apart from that your comments are in danger of being seen as forum style comments, unfortunately displaying an ignorance of Australian Aboriginal culture, knowledge and customs. Your anthropological analyses need a much stronger basis. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The article regarding the progress of the Endeavour is incorrect. After repairs in Cooktown they travelled a short distance[ about 60nm] to Lizard Island where Cook climbed to the summit to look for a passage out through the barrier reef. He saw one and they sailed out [Cooks passage] but due to poor conditions they were forced back through a passage more northerly [ not sure of the name].

The ship THEN proceeded to Cape York etc etc. I propose that this article be corrected and I invite anyone to check the points that I have raised before I correct. Cambering — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cambering (talk • contribs) 01:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Here and in Kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu by Captain James Cook it says Cook was killed when trying to abduct the king. In the other article it says Cook took the king for ransom to his boat. Omikroergosum (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This a fascinating area of discussion. I spent a little time back in May in the area of Hawaii where Cook died. Every time one hears or reads a story about precisely what happened, it's a different story. Written sources can tell one version, but obviously there are different stories in the folklore of native Hawaiian folk who still live there, who didn't have a written language at the time. Tricky. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Several Hawaiians took one of Endeavours boats and so Cook took the King hostage to get the miscreants to return the boat, which was not easily replaceable and hence the theft of-which was more serious than it might at first otherwise appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.6 (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

How can you be so certain what happened, when the people of Hawaii themselves have many different stories surrounding the events? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Because Cook's crew wrote down what happened at the time in the Endeavour''s log and had no reason to lie or mislead anyone. The ship's log was a legal document that would be examined by the Admiralty when the ship returned home and it was an offence to falsify it. In addition, Cook was dead and so no-one had any need or reason to defend him or his actions.

Cook could have just had his men retrieve the boat by force but instead he attempted a peaceful means of getting the boat returned by trying to make the Hawaiian King order his own people to return it. Unfortunately for Cook he made, what was for him, a rare error of judgement, possibly because his patience had been tried. Cook and his crew were guests in the Hawaiian King's kingdom and they didn't expect to have their property stolen, and if it was, it was the Ruler of the Kingdom who was responsible for his own people's actions and it was he, if possible, who should get the boat returned, without Cook and his crew having to interfere with Hawaii's own laws or customs.

The whole incident could have been avoided if the Hawaiian King had just ordered his people to return the boat.

I believe the Endeavour's log is today at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.137 (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The map (just before Second voyage (1772–75) section) doesn’t show that Cook revisited Australia, for the 2nd (and final) time in Jan 1777; see Bruny Island and Third voyage of James Cook. The green line needs a kink inserted. MBG02 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"arriving Tahiti on 13 April 1769" Please add "at" after "arriving." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the Captain Cook Society ^[1] James Cook did captain a ship but he never held the rank of Captain. He was a Lieutenant while aboard the Endeavour and was promoted to post-captain in 1775. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhendrix (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Post-captain an obsolete alternative form of the rank of captain.-gadfium 01:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Gadfium. An officer in command of any Royal Navy vessel is called "captain" as a courtesy but may not necessarily hold that formal rank. Admiralty also declared vessels over a certain size had to be commanded by someone holding captain's rank - where a lower rank was appointed to command these vessels they were ranked as post-captain to show they held their title by virtue of their posting. They reverted to their substantive rank when they ceased to command that vessel. Endeavour was not a post-ship and didn't need a post-captain -- as a small ex-coal carrier on a not very prestigious mission it was appropriate that she be commanded by a lieutenant, who would merely be entitled to the courtesy title of captain while in actual command. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, the Captain Cook Society website and the Wiki article are mistaken. Cook was in fact promoted to captain's rank, equivalent to full colonel in the Army (or, from 1918, group captain in the Royal Air Force). Post-Captain was not a rank. It meant an officer of captain's rank who actually held an appointment -- usually the command of a ship, though in Cook's case it was a nominal appointment to Greenwich Hospital -- as opposed to languishing on half-pay. It did not mean a more junior officer who happened to command a vessel. Cook's previous rank was commander, captain being the next step up. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cook's 'cause of death' was not as is stated "Killed by Hawaiians after returning to Hawaii". This is quite a biased statement and should either be corrected to say "Cause of Death - Blunt Trauma to the head" or included to mention the true reason for his demise. I believe this should read something along the lines of, "Cause of Death - Beaten to death after insulting Kalaniʻōpuʻu, King of Hawaii." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clumster (talk • contribs)

He was not killed for insulting the king of Hawaii, from the article, but rather for attempting to kidnap him (the king later found out he was an enemy). Also, I don't comprehend the rationale you're giving as to why the current reason listed for death is "biased". He was, indeed, killed by the Hawaiian people after he went back to Hawaii. The death reason, "blunt trauma to the head", might not be 100% accurate considering he was also stabbed as well. I believe the attack on Cook's head was to deprive him of any reaction to the abrupt attack orchestrated by the Hawaiians, therefore, it is not plausible to say "blunt force trauma to the head" as the death reason _{(possibly stabbed to death?)}. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I can say for sure that the death portion was done with respect to both Cook/his own actions as well as the kanaka maoli (Native Hawaiians) and what occurred there that day. The section was edited using secondary and primary sources with kanaka sources taken in to account as well as other sources. Blunt trauma to the head? Uhm...he was stabbed to death. This was researched for accuracy not to suit an agenda. The claim of being struck on the head before being stabbed to death has been questioned but was never considered how Cook died. From what the secondary and primary sources say, Cook was killed when he attempted to take the ali'i nui (ruler) of the island of Hawaii as retaliation for one of his ship's small boats being taken. He had already burned a village in Tahiti. Many of his own crew felt he was ill and over reacting.

I wrote the section and discovered that I am directly descended from one of the central figures and closely related to another but I have no particular bias. I only documented what Cooks surgeon and others (including Captain Bligh) stated in published accounts and verified through archives of the State of Hawaii and other primary sources. I only learned of my own connection to this part of history a few years ago. I didn't grow up with any of this.

The article and subject has importance to world history. Perhaps it is time we begin trying to improve the article towards Wikipedia standards for Good Article criteria. This article seems worth it.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First line should read a captain in the Royal Navy, rather than 'the captain in the Royal Navy' Grosseteste (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Partly done. Even better, no article is needed at all. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello all I have removed some material which I think is speculative, controversial, and not supported by the sources. I have replaced it with the generally accepted account. The deleted material is:

"He climbed the hill with three others, including Joseph Banks. On seeing a navigable passage, he signalled the good news down to the men on the ship, who cheered loudly.

Cook later wrote that he had claimed possession of the east coast when up on that hill, and named the place 'Possession Island'. However, the Admiralty's instructions[35] did not authorise Cook to annex New Holland (Australia) and therefore it is unlikely that any possession ceremony occurred that August. Importantly, Banks, who was standing beside Cook, does not mention any such episode or announcement in his journal.[36] Cook re-wrote his journal on his arrival in Batavia (Jakarta) when he was confronted with the news that the Frenchman, Louis Bougainville, had sailed across the Pacific the previous year.[37]

In his revised journal entry, Cook wrote that he had claimed the entire coastline that he had just explored as British territory."

There is abundant documentary evidence that Cook claimed possession of the east coast of New Holland on Possession Island on 22 August 1770 and this is the established view among professional historians. It seems odd to argue that Admiralty instructions prevented Cook from making a formal claim to the east coast on Possession Island but didn't prevent him from making a fake claim a few weeks later. Although Banks does not mention the possession claim in his journal it is mentioned in Cook's journal, the ship's log, James Matra's unauthorised account and in Banks's Grey Manuscript. Parkinson, who was on the Endeavour at the time, also reports that Cook raised a jack - that is, a British flag which is a sign of a claim of possession. I think a Wikipedia article on James Cook needs to rely on established facts rather than speculative theories. A good recent scholarly account of Cook's first voyage can be found in John Molony's Captain James Cook: Claiming the Great South Land. Happy to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 09:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to mention in the Bibliography the following book:

Margaret Cameron-Ash, the author of Lying for the Admiralty. Wimbledon32 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Details: PUBLISHED: 1st July 2018; ISBN: 9780648043966

Lying for the Admiralty is a 2018 book authored by Margaret Cameron-Ash.

Camerone-Ash is professional lawyer, probably for the prosecution, who uses her detective skills to tease out the truth from inadequate evidence, on balance of probabilities, as we say.

Her main task in this book is to answer the question why Cook studied the inadequate port of Botany Bay while overlooking the nearby and excellent waters of Port Jackson, later called Sydney Harbour.

Some of her conclusions are therefore of a speculative nature, unlike what Aemilius Adolphin above deletes. Wimbledon32 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Crookhaven River is a small river that is a tributary of the larger Shoalhaven River. The Shoalhaven mouth is blocked by a barrier (shoal) that makes it unsuitable for large ocean-going ships, even those of the 18th Century. Presumably this explains the name.

The Crookhaven might be named for the shoals at its mouth, or for its namesake, Crookhaven, which in turn may owe its name to the Crooke family, in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimbledon32 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

James Cook had six children.

Yes. We already note that fact in the final paragraph of the Early life and family section of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello all

I think this entry is too detailed for this article as it refers to a re-enactment of only one encounter in the first of Cook's three voyages. I suggest that only the first sentence of the entry should be retained in this article and moved to the Memorials section. The remainder of the entry would be best moved to the article First Voyage of James Cook under the existing "Re-enactment" section.

I also suggest editing the entry for length and a slight rewording for accuracy and clarity. vis:

Annual re-enactment at Cooktown

In 1959, the Cooktown Re-enactment Association first performed a re-enactment of Cook's 1770 landing at the site of modern Cooktown, Australia, and have continued the tradition each year, with the support and participation of many of the local Guugu Yimithirr people. They celebrate the first act of reconciliation between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous people, based on a particular incident. Cook and his crew had developed a friendly relationship with the local people, recording more than 130 words of their language (including "gangurru", from which "kangaroo" is derived). However, after the crew refused to share 12 green turtles which they had caught, thus violating local customs, the locals became angry. A Guugu Yimithirr elder stepped in, presenting Cook with a broken-tipped spear as a peace offering, thus preventing an escalation which could have ended in bloodshed.

@Laterthanyouthink: Do you mind if I make these changes? Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Aemilius Adolphin, go ahead, that sounds good. I thought that it was an interesting bit of info so just looked for a place to add it, but didn't get as far as discovering the other article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a claim that cook was apprenticed on the brig Brotherly Love, built in 1764.(Benham, Hervey (1980). The Salvagers. Colchester: Essex County Newspapers Ltd. p. 190. ISBN 00 950944 2 3.) The claim comes from the Essex Standard of 15 or 22 March 1867. Is this worth including in the article? I should be able reference to the contemporary newspaper if desired. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Somebody called Captain Cook might have sailed in this vessel, but it wasn't this James Cook.
In 1764, James Cook was in command of "Grenville" and surveying Newfoundland. His subsequent ships are well documented, and do not include "Brotherly Love". A list of his ships whilst he was in the Navy can be seen online at https://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/detail/a-table-of-cook-s-ships-in-the-royal-navy
The claim about "Brotherly Love" also featured in "Cook's Log", the journal of the Captain Cook Society, and can be found online at https://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/detail/john-wilkinson-shipowner-of-whitby-1708-1771
A newspaper report that explains how the mistaken connection might have taken place can be seen onlie at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/11711510 CaptainCookFan (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree he couldn't have been apprenticed on a brig in the 1760s given he had already joined the Navy and advanced to a command before Brotherly Love was built. Plus, as above the ships he sailed on even as an apprentice are fairly wlel documented and don't include this one. Perhaps the Brotherly Love claim is a miscommunication through the ages of Cook's actual apprenticeship in the 1740s on the similarly-named Freelove? Or perhaps its just something made up centuries ago by someone hoping to associate themselves with a famous mariner. There are well-documented stories of all sorts of ne'er-do-wells claiming they had sailed with Cook, including one enterprising fellow who made his living offering dockside tours of what he claimed was Endeavour herself (it wasn't), based on his experiences as one of Cook's crew (he wasn't). But whatever its background, the Brotherly Love claim is unfortunately both chronologically unlikely and contradicted by other sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Thank you to all you humans who make Wikipedia work. This is my first time posting something and I am not sure if I am noting this in the right place. What I wanted to note is that this article, while very thorough in many ways, is also missing significant components of James Cook's legacy.

Cook's voyages opened the gates for settler colonialism in many parts of the world leaving a destructive legacy of genocide, white supremacy, and forced assimilation. I suspect that the authors of this article never meant to celebrate the impact of Cook's voyages on Native communities but not mentioning those legacies can feel like a tacit approval of the harm that came to so many as a result of the journeys he and his crew completed.

I don't know what the next steps are, if any, but please note that I would gladly try to gather research on this legacy if it would be helpful. Looking forward to seeing a more honest accurate description of Cook's legacy.

In facing the difficult stories in history may we learn to avoid repeating them.

June 24, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReganBrooks (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, firstly Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it doesn't exist as a platform for you to present your research. Secondly, this is not Cook's legacy, Cook had no hand in any of it and it is WP:OR and WP:SYN to hijack this article for revisionist history. Finally, WP:GREATWRONGS, wikipedia doesn't exist as a platform to right great wrongs. I suggest in the politest possible terms that perhaps wikipedia is not for you. For the record, I oppose the suggestion being made. WCM_email 11:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that, as is already stated in the article, it was Joseph Banks who "subsequently strongly promoted British settlement of Australia". Cook seemed to keep well away from such matters. HiLo48 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48. WCM, I think you were a wee bit hard on a newbie. Errantius (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWB WCM_email 06:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as an example of the post hoc fallacy. Just because Cook visited a place does not mean everything that subsequently happened in that place occurred because he visited it. Well-sourced material on the legacy of settler colonialism and cultural imperialism would more logically appear in articles in those subjects, or in articles on the individual nations or peoples for whom ths has current or historical relevance. In passing both of the articles I linked above are C-class and could do with substantial reworking. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Euryalus. Rjensen (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Euryalus. CaptainCookFan (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Conditionally indorse I partly agree, in that synthesising information or performing original research is off-limits, but there is a place for the overwhelming academic discourse concerning Cook. As for 'righting great wrongs' WP:GREATWRONGS, it is the definition of this rule that one can cite present research post-hoc. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. So, in terms of captain cook, there are strong movements making it into national media frequently condemning his actions and what they caused. There is also an overwhelming amount of journal articles and books that implicate Cook (and Banks) in colonisation and its trauma. I would indorse fleshing out accounts of history that miss the violence involved in invading another country, but be sure it is written neutrally and factually. See the new paragraph on the controversy over legacy. Chambordboy (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello all

This section only presents one side of a disputed issue and therefore amounts to advocacy. There are also a number of other issues. It's not always clear whether it is about Cook's exploration of Australia or his voyages of exploration in general. The heading "Historical Erasure" is a piece of academic jargon and not very helpful to a general reader. Other specific issues are:

Until relatively recently, Captain Cook was commonly referred to as the "discoverer" of Australia, even though, as he records, the land was already occupied (see Aboriginal Australians).

I note that the source for this statement does not include a single example of a textbook claiming that Cook discovered Australia. Almost all serious academic literature from the beginning of the Commonwealth of Australia acknowledged that several European explorers had sighted Australia before Cook. They also acknowledged that Indigenous Australians were already there. It would be fair to say that the general public sometimes erroneously referred to Cook as the "discoverer of Australia" or "discoverer of the East Coast of Australia" but that is mainly due to a general ignorance of Australian history. There is also dispute over the meaning of the word "discover" in the context of European exploration.

Museums and other cultural memory institutions frequently omit the often violent landings that Cook conducted.

This is too general. How frequently? In my experience the vast majority of museums that deal with Cook's landings go out of their way to record any resulting violence.

Procter notes the often violent first interaction with First Nation indigenous people upon Cook's arrival. There was a vast imbalance of weaponry, between Cook's men with their muskets and the native tribes equipped with spears and shields made from tree bark (see Gweagal Shield).

Are we talking about Australia here, or Cook's landings in general? The statement is also false on the face of it. The vast imbalance of weaponry was usually on the side of the Indigenous populations as hundreds of warriors with spears could easily wipe out a landing party armed with muskets if they wanted to. The journals of Cook and Banks make this clear.

These sorts of erasure have been criticised as an unconstructive recording of history, effectively continuing colonialism rather than addressing its ongoing consequences.

This is only one interpretation. In any event there is no "erasure" because the vast majority of works on the subject (including this Wikipedia article) provide ample coverage of the violence often associated with Cook's interaction with Indigenous populations.

I would recommend that this section be either removed or rewritten to provide more balanced information. A separate article would probably be warranted.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello all

I have expanded this section and have changed the image and the heading to "Controversy over Cook's legacy" to better reflect the expanded content. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Very much better. I'd been looking for the Hyde Park statue but couldn't find it. Errantius (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors

I am so pleased this paragraph gained traction. I appreciate it not being removed and instead re-writing parts with a more neutral tone. I am glad a more balanced factual account is being represented on Cook's page, and I'd like to thank those who took the time to edit it. I think it is of great significance and would be absurd to turn a blind eye to the new academic and social lens through which Cook's legacy is being seen. Cheers.

That being said, I'd like to really forensically dissect this statement:

The vast imbalance of weaponry was usually on the side of the Indigenous populations as hundreds of warriors with spears could easily wipe out a landing party armed with muskets if they wanted to.

1) A musket beats a wooden shield and unprotected flesh in almost all settings; 2) Invading a foreign country without their consent seems a strange situation to defend; 3) In this instance, Cook arrived with this navy entourage on Botany Bay NSW on Sunday 29th April 1770. In the most significant recordable conflict (to which there is still emotional uproar and trauma to this day: See Rodney Kelly and any indigenous elders' accounts of lasting trauma from gunshots fired, and the Gweagal shield story), there were two Gweagal warriors on the beach who made contact with Cook. One was shot in the leg, and the other ran out of fear of the approaching naval ships. He dropped his shield in sheer panic. This shield was looted, and taken back for the British to display. I cannot see how this account backs up the claim that warriors could wipe out a landing party ... if they wanted to. Are you insinuating the Gweagal tribe didn't want to defend their land, and that is why their land was looted and colonised? I cannot see an instance where this statement is true. I'd invite any neutral friendly debate on this stance. Chambordboy (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

James Cook was born on 7 November 1728 (NS) ... Is it a Wikipedia Convention to convert dates on documents to " New Style"? It has to be the most confusing thing imaginable? If it is not a Wikipedia Convention I propose changing the dates ( like birthdate) to what is on the document? LawrieM (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me this content is not befitting of a Wikipedia article. It may have been newsworthy at the time, but doesn't have particular ongoing significance. Do any editors have anything to add? thorpewilliam (talk) 10:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of imperial attitudes is a hot topic the world over, including in Australia and the UK. Statues are being removed in the UK and the USA. WP has to register this debate. Errantius (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

My belief is that what the section discusses is a short-term (and now seemingly past) disturbance. Wider public and academic opinion is a seperate matter, but seems to me to be less hot-tempered. I'm not aware of any statues of Capt. Cook being removed in either nation but am happy to be disproven – it would surprise me. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The amount of coverage we give it looks about right to me. Not a big deal but it should be there to reflect coverage and modern interest. But could probably lose everything after "Alice Proctor argues" without missing much. Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dushan Jugum: I agree. Perhaps this could all be reduced to one sentence, saying something along the lines of "There have been various academic responses to..."? The current situation is awkward at best. Kind regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the information after "Alice Proctor argues..." should be retained because it provides important context about the current debate around the decolonisation movement and its relevance to Cook's legacy. The section doesn't seem over-long to me, particularly given the amount of space devoted to Cook memorials. As for the question of whether these "disturbances" will be short-term - that's not for us to predict. They happened and should be recorded here. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

All good by me. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The section looks just about right to me too, and I agree with Aemilius Adolphin on all these points. A petition started at Change.org and addressed to Governor David Ige of Hawaiʻi is calling for "Immediate Removal of Captain Cook Monuments in The Hawaiian Islands!" and has 7,843 signatures. Carlstak (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's one person out of around every 200 Hawaiians. I don't think it's major news yet. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't say it was. Just a note. Must say your user page is, er, illuminating to your username.;-) Carlstak (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Long time listener, first time caller - appreciate your time reviewing this request!

Change the word "detain" to "kidnap" in this sentence: "Cook was attacked and killed in 1779 during his third exploratory voyage in the Pacific while attempting to detain the ruling chief of the island of Hawaii, Kalaniʻōpuʻu, to reclaim a cutter taken from one of his ships after his crew took wood from a burial ground."

I believe the meaning of the word detain isn't clear and not reflective of what actually occurred. Detain means "keep (someone) from proceeding by holding them back or making claims on their attention", where as kidnap means "abduct (someone) and hold them captive, typically to obtain a ransom". Given that Cook went specifically to the hut of Kalaniʻōpuʻu to take him with the express purpose of re-obtaining the boat, I believe this falls under kidnapping.

Detaining I think would be more apt if Kalaniʻōpuʻu was already on Cook's ship, and they refused to let Kalaniʻōpuʻu leave.

The reason I think this is important is it leads the reader down the path of thinking it was some form of miscommunication, and its only when you read the "Death of James Cook" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_James_Cook) You realise how fully at fault he is. Alexjackhughes (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead was modified by Aemilius Adolphin so as to include the following sentence:

However, there is controversy over Cook's role as an enabler of colonialism, and the violence associated with his contacts with indigenous peoples.

I have since modified the sentence to read as such:

Cook's perceived role in colonialism has been the subject of controversy and debate.

I believe the inclusion of this may give it undue weight in the lead (side-note, I removed a reference to violence in contact with native peoples as this is not mentioned in the article body; note also it was in every case of an defensive or accidental nature for which Cook later expressed regret). Criticisms of Cook and his legacy are far outweighed by the numerous memorials to him and things named after him, which are acknowledged more briefly at the end of the prior sentence. There also seems to be an implicit judgement about the merits of colonialism in the sentence. I suggest that, for these reasons, controversies around his legacy remain in the article body where more nuanced discussion can take place. Other aspects of his legacy, such as cultural references and his ethnographic collections, are indeed discussed here and not in the lead. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is an accurate summary of the contents of the article. It is one sentence in the lead and follows immediately after a longer sentence about Cook's scientific legacy and the memorials dedicated to him. It is a necessary acknowledgment in the lead of one of the most important current debates about Cook's legacy. Violence associated with Cook's contacts with Indigenous Peoples is mentioned throughout the entire article and in the cited sources in the controversy section. They are historical fact. The sentence in the lead does not state or imply that Cook was solely responsible for this violence. It takes a neutral POV by stating that the violence "associated" with his contacts with indigenous peoples is a matter of controversy. It is a matter of controversy, as the history of revisions to this article in the past few years shows. There is also controversy of Cook's role as an "enabler of colonialism". This is a direct quote from the body of the article and I would be happy to put it in quotes in the lead. It is better than "perceived role in colonialism" because "perceived" is redundant and a weasel word. The controversy is over Cook's role in colonialism as the article makes clear. I find it astonishing that anyone would think that Cook had no role in "enabling" colonialism. After all he claimed large chunks of New Zealand and the East Coast of new Holland for Britain, and Britain did indeed soon establish colonies there. Saying that Cook was an enabler of colonialism is different from saying that he had a major role in the planning of specific colonies or was responsible for the adverse affects of colonial policies on Indigenous populations. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for the explanation. thorpewilliam (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin Can you please tell me where you find violence associated with Cook's explorations is discussed in the article body? I have done a word search for several terms and have not been able to find it – only mentions of eventual consequences of his voyages. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Thorpewilliamfor checking this for me. On re-reading the article I see that it is only explicitly mentioned in the Death section and in the articles cited in the footnotes to the controversy section.I can put in a sentence with citations in the Controversy section to make this more specific. I will discuss on your talk page to see if we can come up with agreed wording. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin No worries! Look forward to it, but may be fairly busy. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion before adding information to this page, but I have added some information around the altercation at the first landing of Cook at Botany Bay. This is backed up by Cook's own journal, which is sourced and you can have a look. Cook has indeed sparked a lot of controversy and it would not be NPOV to not mention it. In an effort to maintain encyclopaedic merit, and given the earlier discussion on this page, I have kept the lead sentence to a short sentence, balanced the information on the encounter to show both sides, and removed any editorialising language. I hope this shows my good faith in editing. Cheers. Poketama (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nearly five years ago I pointed out a mistake in this article, that has gone unchanged. My original comment: 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 realize this may not be important to some, but it is certainly an error in the article. If an source cannot be found for the correct size of the fenced off area, I suggest that reference be removed. Radeichler (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the size of the area for the obelisk. Neither of the references supported it.-gadfium 23:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've finally found a source for the size. "Great Britain in Hawaii: The Captain Cook Monument" by John Wesley Coulter in Geographical Journal, Vol. 130, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 256-261, which says

The site on which Captain Cook's monument was erected in 1874 was presented to the British Consul in January 1877 by Archibald Cleghorn and his wife, Princess Likelike, sister of King Kalakaua. The following is a transcript of the deed of conveyance:

AN INDENTURE made this twenty-sixth day of January a.d. 1877 between ARCHIBALD S. CLEGHORN of the City of Honolulu Island of Oahu in the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands and HER ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCESS MIRIAM LIKELIKE his wife in her own right (hereinafter designated Grantors) of the first part and MAJOR JAMES HAY WODEHOUSE Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General for the said Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands (hereinafter designated Trustee) of the second part WITNESSETH that in consideration of one dollar paid to the Grantors by the said Trustee the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged the Grantors do and each of them by these presents doth hereby give grant bargain sell and convey unto the said Trustee all that lot of land situate in Kaawaloa District of Kona Island of Hawaii in said Kingdom and bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point which bears North 180 32' W. (true) distant 38*4 feet from the centre of Cook's Monument and running S. 260 28' W. true 54 i2/k>o this side being parallel with the sea face of the monument S. 630 32' E. true 105 feet to the sea N. 260 28' E. ? 54 12/100 feet along the sea N. 63? 32' W. ? 105 feet to initial point Containing an area of 5682 6/10 square feet.

CaptainCookFan (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The deed seems to describe the whole monument site, as an area of "5682 6/10 square feet"—not the monument itself, whose area would be much smaller. Errantios (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cook's first meeting with Aboriginal people is very significant for many reasons and deserves placement on the page, not shortened to a sentence or moved off to a secondary page. I have already taken into account your notes and heavily condensed the information twice, reducing the information down to bare facts. The information is backed up by secondary and primary sources. I don't agree with the argument that it is not concise enough, as there is plenty of less important information on this page that goes into more detail; including directly before and after the section I edited and I attempted to trim some words in those sections as well. Poketama (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We have already discussed this issue at length on your talkpage and you didn’t respond to may last detailed post. To reiterate, I agree that the violent first encounter with Indigenous Australians should be recorded in the article, and it is so recorded in the current version. The issue is the amount of space that should be devoted to it to preserve the balance of an article of this kind. Your changes give more space to this one encounter than to that devoted to Cook’s entire time in Tahiti and New Zealand. It also gives more prominence to one encounter in which one person was slightly wounded than to the seven weeks of mostly peaceful encounters in Cooktown. The article is a full biography of Cook and is written in a condensed way. In order to preserve the balance of the article it would be better to leave the detail about spear shaking, warning shots, stone throwing, small shot, spear throwing etc to the daughter article on Cook's First Voyage where it is adequately covered. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond but took your post into account and edited my work accordingly. Is there a policy that shows that this level of concision is necessary? The balance that you are talking about is not given in the current version. There is a significant amount of fluff that I could trim out independently of my edits if you like. I would suggest more specific events of the voyages could be included and quotes be removed.

It doesn't appear clear to me that giving more prominence to this encounter is undue, as naturally a biography of my life where I had shot someone and then 8 weeks of regular life would reflect the shooting much more heavily - because its a significant event. That Tahiti and NZ are not well covered suggests to me that they need to be filled out. The voyages and the encounters they had are the most significant events of Cook's life, not for example: when he got a stomach ache and fed his crew walrus meat. Poketama (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"That Tahiti and NZ are not well covered suggests to me that they need to be filled out." They are in the main article on the First Voyage - that's what it's for. If we keep expanding this article it will be little different from the daughter article. You rightly pointed out that previously this article ignored the violent encounters with Indigenous peoples and this has been addressed. But when you are seeking to add detail about a point already made in an established article, you need to consider whether that detail is already adequately covered in a linked article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you please link me to some Wikipolicy that supports your point? I'm trying to improve my editing so if we are at disagreement because of my fault I'd like to work on that. Poketama (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:SS and WP:TMI Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello all

Following discussions with a couple of other editors, I have added some information about Cook's encounters with Indigenous inhabitants, including those resulting in violence. This did seem a glaring omission from the article, particularly from the section covering the First Voyage. Happy to discuss.Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with your controversy section and just think my wording for the lead is better. The fact is that there IS very significant controversy around Cook's use of violence, especially among indigenous communities in the places he visited (not about the violence on both sides?) and his use of violence is well documented. The placement of the short sentence, way down the bottom of the lead, buttressed with a longer sentence about his achievements, is already very light. The way the sentence is written is so vague as to lose most meaning to a casual reader. The 'violence associated with his contacts' could have been a war, a slap, it could have been him being shot and never fighting back, or only his crew using violence, or the violence perpetrated by later colonists. There is a need on Cook's page to acknowledge at the very least that the controversy is around HIS use of violence, if not the why and how. Poketama (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the controversy is about the violence associated with his encounters with Indigenous peoples. To reduce it only to Cook's use of violence is to take sides in the controversy and downplay the more common peaceful encounters and the violence against Cook's party. The lead should summarise the whole article and we expect the reader to read the whole article. The issue of violent encounters is adequately covered in the lead. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean but the sentence is still very vague which is where my confusion comes from. I don't think its neutral to note the praise, achievements, and memorials, without noting that he has been criticised for his use of violence.

I think it would be better to present both sides. Eg. "Cook and his legacy has been criticised by indigenous communities for his use of violence towards indigenous peoples and his role in the colonial process. However, his supporters see him as well-intentioned and note his many peaceful encounters and scientific achievements." Poketama (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This reduces a complex issue to a crude dispute between "indigenous communities" and "supporters of Cook". There are multiple Indigenous perspectives on Cook and many of his most vocal critics are western intellectuals. The lead adequately alerts the reader that there is a debate over the issues of violence and colonialism. More detail is in the article. I suggest that we now step back and allow others to comment if they wish. You can always reach me on my talkpage though. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I am trying to reach a consensus on this issue so I appreciate you explaining. This was just one example. I believe the lead as currently written does not follow the MOS by "summarising prominent controversies". I also still think it is weighted towards a praising POV of Cook as I stated above.

Maybe: "Cook's legacy is the subject of controversy over the significance and circumstances around his use of violence towards indigenous peoples and his role in the colonial process. (Rest as per article re: scientific accomplishments.) Poketama (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained that framing things as "Cook's violence" is itself biased. There is also controversy over the murder of Cook, for example. The lead adequately summarises the prominent controversies in a succint way. I don't see the need for any changes on this aspect and those you propose are worse that the status quo. Others can add their opinion if they wish. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not understanding your argument. Can you explain a bit more for me please? I don't understand why saying something like "There is controversy around whether Cook's use of violence was justifiable based on the circumstances" is biased? I feel as it is the statement is so vague as not to summarise anything. Poketama (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Worth a look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_religion_and_mythology#Captain_Cook Poketama (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the phrase “There is controversy over Cook's role as 'an enabler of colonialism',[1] and the violence associated with his contacts with indigenous peoples.“. While it is a valid comment there is an entire section given to James Cook’s legacy and the controversy over his views of indigenous people. His legacy is however first and foremost “scientific and geographical” but this is lost as it comes after the giant health warning. 212.237.220.104 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. The lead section is a summary of the whole article, and it is appropriate for it to include one sentence about this. I can't understand why you call this a "giant health warning".-gadfium 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

IMO its not enough as it is, pretty wild someone is upset about it. Poketama (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello all

I have changed the relevant subheading from "Cultural references" to "Culture". I am concerned that the previous heading will encourage contributions about any cultural references to James Cook (amounting to a trivia section) rather than a serious attempt to summarise modern scholarship about the cultural impact of James Cook. The content of this subheading is currently scanty and random. I will try to improve it over the next few months and would welcome any input from other interested editors. I cut back a recent good faith edit with much detail about a poem by Letitia Elizabeth Landon about Cook. I did this because there is no evidence that this is a major poem which is a significant part of Cook's cultural legacy. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin Fair call, though perhaps such trivial examples of Cook's cultural influence could be organised under a (sub-)subheading. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Some time ago I amended the end of the lead to read "Whilst there is controversy over Cook's role as an enabler of British colonialism and the violence associated with his contacts with indigenous peoples, he left a legacy of scientific and geographical knowledge that influenced his successors well into the 20th century, and numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him." The object of this was to emphasise as a concluding point Cook's scientific/geographic influence and widespread acknowledgement through memorials. This has seemed to become accepted through time. I wonder what other editors think of this ordering? Could it be improved upon? Would it perhaps be better to place memorials/controversy in one sentence and scientific/geographic impact in another? I am wary that my edits in this regard came from a personal POV of what I felt should be elevated. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. "Whilst" is a bit stiff and formal though. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

60.241.194.196 (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Captain COOK died to magllen a Portuguese explorer in AUSTRALIA

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Recoil16 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin The section is about culture that references Cook. If you believe the section constitutes WP:TRIVIA, then why are you reverting my single edit (which curiously does not even remove the content I added) and not removing other trivia-tier listed items such as the Australian slang phrase? And I will repeat what I said before, I seriously suggest you refrain from flippantly accusing users of engaging in commercial editing (a COI) without any basis. It is unproductive, needlessly unsympathetic, and shows a dearth of interest in the validity of your utterances. Οἶδα (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is about Cook's enduring cultural legacy. You added information about a recently released song from a fringe band about the death of Cook. The reference was an article in a music website which included a promotional video from the band which is clearly promoting the band and the song. Of course, there is a fine line between news and product promotion in the entertainment media, and I would agree that the reference would be appropriate in an article about the band. But this is an article about James Cook. The question is, is this song part of Cook's enduring cultural legacy? We will only know in a decade or two's time. Perhaps it will sink without trace. Perhaps it will become a world wide hit and make the band rich and famous. In the later case, it might then be worth mentioning in an article about Cook. Otherwise the risk is that this section will turn into yet another Wikipedia trivia section listing a random collection of references to Cook in comic books, computer games, TV shows, music, etc. If you think other items in this section should be removed on the same grounds please make your case. Believe me, I will be all ears. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, including a terse phrase like "Commercial promotion" in your edit summary will be interpreted by Wiki editors as a COI accusation and not within such a conception of promotional content. I also never actually disagreed on the point of the entry being on the fringes of trivia. I myself considered the very issue before adding the entry to the section, and was unimpressed by the preexisting state of it. It begins, in list form, with the vague and unsourced declaration that Cook has been the subject of "many" literary creations. A line break follows, and there is a mention of a poetical work with no identification of the actual work. The mention of Slessor's poem does not read as trivia. But a reference to an Australian slang phrase does. The Buzzfeed-tier CNN article may be right and it very well may be a common slang that I am simply unaware of, but is it? Or is it a trivial matter peripheral to Cook's enduring cultural legacy? Οἶδα (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the section is poor. When I get time I will have another look at the literature on Cook's cultural legacy and try to provide a concise overview. I started on it a year ago and was simply overwhelmed by the amount of material to work with. "Having a Captain Cook" is indeed an Australian slang term and I will try to find a more authoritative source for it. (The term is falling out of popular use though. I haven't heard anyone using it with a straight face in over twenty years.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear. I also realized I overlooked your above commentary about avoiding such sections that invite additions of trivia. Also, it may be interesting to mention Cook's depictions in visual art such as the many paintings depicting his death, including the reported historical revisionism. Οἶδα (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"straight face", Aemilius: neither have I. Errantios (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have summarised a recent edit with detailed information about a handful of instances where Cook has been depicted in films, documentaries, etc. The problem is that this risks turning into an "in popular culture" section where editors add their favourite TV show with some slight reference to Cook. It is enough to say that Cook, like most famous historical figures, has been often depicted in films and television. Some analysis of the frequency this has happened would be more informative than a potted list of some of these instances. Also see the discussion of culture above.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello all

A few editors have added the same information about vandalisation of Cook statues in Melbourne under the Memorials section and the Controversy section. I have consolidated this information in the Controversy section because it most logically belongs there along with the paragraph about Cook's debated role in colonisation. I am also concerned that this article should not record every occasion when a statue of Cook is vandalised or Cook's name is mentioned in debates about colonialism. The article should be about the long term legacy of Cook rather than a collection of news items about political activism related to Cook: WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article aready already adequately covers similar protests.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism is part of one aspect of Cook's many faceted story. It needs to be mentioned, but not every time it happens. We are not a tabloid news service. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes again, but what would be the criterion? In another context it was once agreed that vandalism should be reported only when it constituted "irreparable damage". Maybe that is too restrictive: to prefer "structural damage" would include chopping down a metal artifact, which probably could and would be repaired but the item would likely be missing for several months. Recording structural damage should mention any other action, such as daubing paint, that explains the principal action—although, as in this case, it may be sufficient to leave detail to photos in the media links. Errantios (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing the conflation of the ideas: Cook's first expedition was April-August 1770; however, people conflate this with the First Fleet (that got to Botany Bay ~16 January 1788, and then arrived in Port Jackson on 26 January, with the flag-raising taking place several weeks later.) It was messy, then, and more so now! But, people don't get the difference. - Peter Ellis - Talk 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right Pete. I don't really understand why people want to blame Cook so much. He was a minor British officer, from the lower classes, jut following his orders. He may not have been a perfect human being, but it wasn't his decision to sent the First Fleet to Australia. I really would like to see that emphasised more in our articles. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's true, Australians aren't very good with history. But the theme of the direct action/vandalism of Cook statues is anti-colonialism and given that Cook claimed the entire east coast of Australia for Great Britain is fair enough to consider him at least an "enabler" of the later colonisation of the continent. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the last paragraph of the article discusses this issue and I think it is adequate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that paragraph addresses the fact that some of the anger towards and criticism of Cook arises from misunderstandings (or to put it more plainly, sheer ignorance and completely wrong beliefs) about the role he played and what he actually did. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that is a fact—but do we have evidence of it? And it is not ignorant, to treat Cook as a representative adopted by colonists—most of all when we are still told, as on the plinth in Sydney, that he arrived as a discoverer. Errantios (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The ignorance is in things like the the statements I've seen in online debates over the date of Australia Day over the past few days that Cook arrived at Sydney with the First Fleet in 1788. I could have saved some examples, but technically, examples don't count as sources. But yes, those inscriptions on statues are a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Aussiemandias ... Errantios (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is some errors in false information and i want to help and edit it Skyskysun (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ok Skyskysun (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am hesitant for the lead to end on a note of controversy as I don't think that is Cook's principle characteristic or legacy. I think it would make sense to combine this sentence with the bit about memorials to Cook. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have just done so. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There are abundant reliable sources which state that Cook's legacy is controversial. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A big chunk of that controversy comes from misunderstandings, or people simply believing falsehoods about what Cook did. Every year around every Australia Day here in Australia we see claims about him that are just plain wrong. Many people seem to think he brought the First Fleet here to establish the first British settlement. There are other "misunderstandings". I am certain some of this is due to deliberate misinformation. His legacy IS controversial, but not for good reasons. I don't know how we should handle this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about what is the topic of this article and what is not. The article is about James Cook. Any legacies and controversaries should relate to what he did, not what others did afterwards (in which he was not involved). He left a legacy of cartography of the east coast of Australia, he had interactions with Indigenous people which might be controversial (e.g. the eating of turtles at the Endeavour River which the local Indigenous people regarded as their turtles). But "controversial as an enabler of British colonialism" is going well beyond the topic of this article. Yes, British colonisation is controversial. But Cook wasn't involved in colonising Australia (or anywhere as far as I know). Those were decision of the British Government later on, and some people may have played a large role in each of those decisions but not Cook. The word "enabler" is a classic "weasel word". True, exploring the east coast of Australia led to colonisation, but that's like blaming a poisoner's parents or teachers for the murder because they were "enablers" by bringing a murderer into the world or teaching them that certain chemicals are deadly. Yes, we should mention the damage to statues and so forth, but I think we describe this as a protest against colonialism rather than against Cook. Maybe we should phrase it along the lines of "As Cook's explorations sometimes resulted in the establishment of a British colonyn, statues of Cook have become targets for vandalism by those who wish to protest that colonisation. For example, [list of vandalised statues etc]." Kerry (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very much the position I believe this article should take. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cook claimed the east coast of Australia for Britain and there would have been no British colonisation but for this. His statues state that he "discovered this territory". Surely this is part of his legacy. Protests against this legacy are therefore relevant to the legacy section. Indeed, the protests, and the recent scholarly reaction to the narratives of discovery, are probably the most culturally dominant aspects of his legacy today. Whether we as editors think this is misguided is irrelevant; we simply follow the reliable sources. I think the current balance of the legacy section is about right, as there is much more material on monuments etc. than about the reaction against them. As for "enabler of colonialism" being "weasel words" it is a quote from a prominent recent critique of Cook's legacy. It was originally in the lead as a quote with a source. I would prefer if this version were restored as it would show that the expression wasn't just some editor's weasel words. However, the current wording in the lead was the result of a compromise with other editors who preferred stronger language. (The relevant discussion will be in the arhives somewhere.) The Legacy section of the article explains that it was mainly Banks who advocated the penal colony at Botany Bay and it explains the context of the "enabler of colonialism quote." As I said, I think the legacy section is currently about right and I don't see how Will Thorpe's suggested change improves the article or resolves any of the issues you raise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cook didn't discover Australia. Obviously not from an Indigenous perspective, but not even from a European perspective, as the existence of some land mass in that area wasknown by Europeans before they dispatched Cook to take more a detailed look at it. It could be argued he "discovered" the east coast (from a European perspective). Which of the citations are you referring to as "a prominent recent critique of Cook's legacy" and can you include the extract in context if it is not a publicly-accessible source please? Thanks. Kerry (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said he discovered Australia, I was talking about the inscriptions on his statues. If you go to the Controversy section, read the sentence on "enabler of colonialism" and click on the reference, you will see the article I mentioned. I can also recommend Proctor's book as a stimulating but wrong-headed discussion of Cook's legacy. The broader point is that in many cases a person's legacy is more about their enduring place in the cultural memory of a society. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I already did that. There are two citations. The first is plainly an opinion piece in a newspaper, and it is not presented as such here on Wikipedia as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not even written in temperate tone but uses quite emotive language. Not exactly scholarly. The second is a book that I don't have on my shelf so I would like to know what it says. Kerry (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that the problem is nothing to do with anything Cook did, but with what some idiots wrote on statues. That's NOT Cook's doing. SO it doesn't belong in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nay, sir. We have an article on Cook because what he did is important now. It is important to different people in different ways. A public statue of Cook is to some a public commemoration and to others a public insult. Both that disagreement and the modes of its expression should be acknowledged. Errantios (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not the statues alone that have caused the problem. It's the iditiotic inscriptions on them. Very few of those to whom it's a public insult have valid reasons to see Cook as the problem. Cook didn't build those statues, nor did he write the inscriptions. We could validly say that a problem has been created by the existence of the statues, and worse, the inscriptions, but saying that Cook himself is the problem is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth doing that this discussion has veered entirely from what I started it for. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The long held belief that Captain Cook’s son James, died without issue has in 2024 been disputed in a new book. ^[1]. 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) ^[2]

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)

The review of this book for the Captain Cook Society pronounces it generally unreliable. Looks like it isn't worth a mention in the article body,let alone in the lede. Errantios (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to James Cook has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The final sentence of the third paragraph ("He displayed a combination of seamanship, superior surveying and cartographic skills, physical courage, and an ability to lead men in adverse conditions.") is opinion and not verifiable fact for an historical figure. Other unverifiable opinions about James Cook have equally valid claim to being included at this point in the article, yet they are not.

The most principled approach is to simply delete this sentence. Regardless of the need to balance powerful positive and negative sentiments toward a controversial figure, this sentence has no business being included in an encyclopedia entry without both in-text attribution (e.g. "Contemporaneous British colonial sources state that ...") and relevant citations. 203.185.220.159 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The characterizations of Cook are based on those found in reliable sources—ergo, they're perfectly verifiable—and are not less empirical than many others made routinely in biographies. The lead is meant to summarize the article body, which in turn is meant to provide balanced coverage of our sources, and what you suggest would be needless (and misleading) editorializing of our sources unless it can be shown to be proportional to said coverage. Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If they are verifiable, then as described in the request they should be attributed, and be cited to a source. Frankly this is a desperately poor response. 203.185.220.159 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to read the entire article. The lead is a summary of the article and the statements you object too are properly sourced in the body of the article. Indeed it is the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scholars. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)