Talk:James Cook/Archive 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the 1765 season, four pilots were engaged at a daily pay of 4 shillings each to assist with mapping the west coast of "Great St Lawrence", Fortune Bay, Connaigre, Hermitage Bay, and the "Bay of Despair"^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested Edits:

Add sentence to paragraph describing the confrontation:

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

Citations to include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The account continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Canada section has this sentence: They collaborated on developing preliminary charts of the entrance to the Saint Lawrence River, with Cook most likely the author of sailing directions for the river, written in 1758. Two questions (for @ThoughtIdRetired ):

1. Is there a source & page number for that sentence? I see some cites in the following sentences, but I'm not sure if they apply to this one.
2. The text "... with Cook most likely the author of sailing directions ..." may not be solid enough for the article. Who wrote the sailing directions? If it is unknown: which scholar is speculating that Cook wrote them? What is the scholar's evidence? Why are these sailing directions important? Unless there is a fairly strong justification, it is probably prudent to omit the "sailing directions" text from the article.

Speaking of speculations: the article also has Historian Vanessa Collingridge speculates that this is where Cook first felt the lure of the sea while gazing out of the shop window. which is marginally suited for the article. It is in the early life section, when Cook was a teenager, so it might be alright. It has a solid source. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The green highlighted quote given above is derived from Beaglehole, pp 37-39. The words are carefully chosen (and, just now, amended) to convey as briefly as possible what is described on these pages. Firstly, Beaglehole says (right at the bottom of pg 37) that the charts may just have been a "compilation" of charts already in the navy's possession. Over the page, Beaglehole goes on to explain that these charts were later amended as the "Quebec expedition" advanced up the river. So, me paraphrasing Beaglehole, they needed some sort of chart to begin the advance and amend as they were able to survey as they went along. The obvious caveat is that Beaglehole's description does include the word "possible", but conversely he is basing this part on Holland's memoirs.

The sailing directions bit is again carefully phrased to match Beaglehole's reasoned identification of the writer of the sailing directions. He cites Cook's style, and the dating is based on a battery that was later completely destroyed and ceased to be a landmark. I have added a "the" to the article text to give emphasis to the date of the sailing directions. There are presumably ones of a later date.

I fully accept that the absence of total certainty of Cook's involvement in these two activities may disqualify them from inclusion. However, since we side with the debunkers of the myth that Cook charted the whole St Lawrence on his own in the middle of winter when it was frozen over, we surely need to give the reader something to explain what Cook was doing at the time, even if we are dealing in probabilities. Beaglehole's reasoning on the sailing direction may be judged the stronger argument (he says: "It is possible, too, or probable, that to this period belongs the first example of 'sailing directions' by Cook".) ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

And to answer why were these sailing directions important?, I don't know if you have ever navigated a boat into a river that you are not familiar with (pre-GPS and without other electronic aids), but if someone with that experience had a choice between either charts or sailing directions, they might well choose the latter. The poorer quality the charts, the more important the sailing directions. Yes, this opinion could be labelled WP:OR, but I would hold it is a case of an editor having sufficient understanding of the subject to make a particular editing decision. Note, we are not saying in the article why sailing directions are important – this is just whether or not we think their mention is important enough for inclusion in the article. Anyway, I am probably over-selling this... ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Noleander I see that this information is currently quite scanty and is put under science. We mention the STD issue in a footnote but it might need expansion and promotion to the main body of the article. According to Williams and Thomas the STD issue is a controversial one in Hawaii where apparently the legend is that Cooke deliberately spread it. So if we want to discuss it, it can go in the Controversies section or the Legacy section under a Health subsection. There is also a large literature on Cooke's mental and physical health on the third voyage which we seem to only raise in one very inadequate sentence: "Cook became increasingly frustrated and irritable on this voyage, and sometimes exhibited irrational behaviour towards his crew, such as forcing them to eat walrus meat, which they considered inedible." [As an aside, it wasn't irrational for Cook to insist the crew ate walrus meat--he wanted them to eat fresh meat for health reasons. The problem was he used heavy-handed measures to enforce his edict.] If we want the article to be comprehensive enough for GA perhaps the issues of Cook's health and the STD issue should be covered in a concise way somewhere. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, glad to hear you say that ... I was thinking along the same lines. Bulletizing here for future reference:

• Hygiene of crew
• STDs - HI legend, etc: new Health section within Legacy? Within Controversies section?
• 3rd voyage Cook's own health

It makes me wonder if some of this information should be consolidated into a section devoted to Cook's management style: his behavior as a captain: practices, reputation, good/bad vs other captains; strict/lax; etc. I'm not sure ...such a section could end up being a messy dumping ground. On the other hand, Nelson's article has a section called Asseessment

Noleander (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin - I'm looking into the topic you raised above We mention the STD issue in a footnote but it might need expansion and promotion to the main body of the article. According to Williams and Thomas the STD issue is a controversial one in Hawaii where apparently the legend is that Cooke deliberately spread it. So if we want to discuss it, it can go in the Controversies section or the Legacy section under a Health subsection. I agree that the text should be in the main body text (not in a footnote). I don't think there is a lot of material to go there: the introduction/spread of diseases; reckless/negligent (not deliberate); Cook's ineffective attempts to prevent the spread. One thing I cannot find a source for is "in Hawaii where apparently the legend is that Cooke deliberately spread it." Do you have a source that documents that legend? I've searched and cannot find a source. In any case, I'll start creating that new paragraph in the Legacy section soon. Noleander (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander The passages I was thinking of were in Salmond (2003) [2004 in my Penguin edition] p 428. Also see p. 382 on Cook's alleged affair with a Hawaiian princess. On rereading it, I see that Salmond is saying that this tradition was started by American missionaries hostile to Cook and the British. These missionaries accused Cook of blasphemy (holding himself out as a god), fornication (sleeping with Hawaiians) and deliberately spreading VD. These views were then taken up by Hawaiian historians and woven into oral traditions. Salmond, Williams (pp. 142-148) and Thomas are good on how Hawaiian views of Cook changed under the influence of missionaries and later developments. The issues raised might be too complex for this article but there might be a case for a section on Cook Historiography. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned in an edit summary that I think the diseases should be wikilinked even if it may lead to a bit of a sea of blue. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The article has a few sentences that mention statues of Cook being removed or destroyed (and not replaced):

• "Two Australasian Cook monuments have been removed, one in Gisborne (New Zealand) in 2019, the other in Cairns (Australia) in 2022."
• "Attacks on public monuments to Cook also occurred in Canada and Australia."
• " A statue of James Cook in Victoria, BC, Canada – which was constructed in 1976 – was destroyed on Canada Day in 2021 by protestors drawing attention to the effects of the Canadian Indian residential school system"

The first two sentences (above) are in the Controversy section,; the last sentence is in the Commemorations section. Both sections make sense, but I think readers would be better served if they were consolidated into one location/paragraph. Controversy seems to be the best location, since it deals with the proposals to de-emphasize or eliminate celebrations of Cook, etc. That would mean removing the mention of the Canadian statue from Commemorations section ... which would result in the Canada subsection (within Commemorations section) disappearing, unless other (significant) commemorations exist in Canada. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Also: user:CEBrennan recently added the sentence: "Two Australasian Cook monuments have been removed, one in Gisborne (New Zealand) in 2019, the other in Cairns (Australia) in 2022." . I cannot access the source, but both statues are perhaps pieces of kitsch artwork? If so, they may not be sufficiently important to mention; especially if the removal was not related to serious indigenous decolonization efforts. Noleander (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The source used for the "two statutes removed" sentence is:

• Brennan, Claire; Stevenson, Ana (2025-05-01). "Monumentally Kitsch: The Decommissioned Captain Cook Statues of Aotearoa (New Zealand) and Australia". Radical History Review. 2025 (152): 32–52. doi:10.1215/01636545-11609996. ISSN 0163-6545. Retrieved 6 June 2025.

and the editor that added it is user:CEBrennan, perhaps an author of the article. Not an issue, just noting for reference. Noleander (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The claim that they were removed due to being kitsch is the opinion of the author rather than an indisputable fact. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the reference because the issue of kitsch is not the point of the section. The Cairns statue was always a bit of a joke just like The Big Pineapple etc. It was removed not because of protests over decolonisation but because the site was sold to the local university for its expansion. The new owner said he might re-erect it but it is made out of wood and not in good condition. The Gisbourne statue is already discussed in the section. And the point of the section is not to list all monuments that have been removed or attacked, it is to raise the underlying issues of protest and decolonisation. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Returning to the original issue posed in this section of the Talk page: I did take action, and consolidated all the statue-related sentences into a single location: the Controversy section. That means the Canada subsection (within Commemoration section) is now gone.

Looking at the statue text in Controversy section: The sentences are rather ugly & I don't think many readers will care about all the fine details (city list, country list). Maybe the list of cities/countries with statues (that were removed/vandalized) can be pushed down into a footnote .... and the body text should instead have couple insightful, professional sentences that summarize the motivations/goals of those pushing for removal. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Statues get vandalised quite a lot, I'd maybe focus on those which were seriously damaged to warrant costly repairs. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

The article uses the word allegation/alleged three times:

1. "...there were public calls for their removal or modification due to their alleged promotion of colonialist narratives."
2. "...he remains a controversial figure because of his violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism in the Pacific."
3. "... Cook is a controversial figure due several violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he played a role in facilitating British colonialism"

The word "allegation" in not ideal, since it typically used in a legal context. Not sure if anything is better. Maybe

• "purported role in enabling colonialsm"
• "suggestions that he enabled colonialism"
• "claims that he enabled colonialism" - Not great: "claim" may imply it is not accurate
• "concerns over his role in colonialism "
• " his role in enabling colonialism" - Remove any qualifier

Any thought or suggestions are appreciated. Noleander (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "legal English" has any exclusive claim to the word "alleged". The Times newspaper today: (talking about a politician and definitely with no legal implications) "He even mocked his own alleged aversion to being in the spotlight." and "Yoti says its AI algorithm, which has been trained on millions of faces, can estimate the age of 13-24 year olds within 2 years of accuracy, allegedly better than human judgement.".

The OED definition of the modern usage (4.0) is "To claim (something unproven) as true; to assert or affirm without proof, or pending proof; to make an allegation about someone or something. In later use frequently with reference to illicit or illegal behaviour." I think that fits with the usage in the article.

Purported is less widely understood (I suggest) but the OED defines it as "Professed, alleged", with the second definition producing a circular argument here.

suggestions that he enabled colonialism seems to rather side with those who think he did not enable colonialism, so not neutral.

"claim" may imply it is not accurate – Agree, this is a less neutral word when we need to be as neutral as possible.

concerns over his role in colonialism implies that his role in colonialism is accepted, when we know that some sources do not think he was a significant element of colonialism.

his role in enabling colonialism. There is no agreement in RSs as to the extent to which he is responsible for the colonialism that followed his activities.

Surely most readers will be aware that "X alleges Y is true" is describing a statement being made that may or may not be true. The word is usually used when the writer is looking for complete neutrality on whether or not the allegation is true. I think it is the best choice. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

There is even more non-legal use of "alleged" in today's Times: "...found in places signposted from the highway on the grounds of their alleged historical significance...", and that's the assistant literary editor; and "we headed south to ancient Babylon, which was allegedly the world’s biggest city". Note that (a) both are discussing history (b) there are other non-legal examples. So the concern that the word has strong legal connotations appear to be illusory. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

MOS:ALLEGED states "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined..." In this case we are dealing with a kind of wrongdoing which hasn't been proven so I think alleged is OK. There was some debate about this a couple of years ago and the result was tortuous compromise prose which has thankfully been simplified. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for that link. I think I found the specific wording that was bothering me: it is #3 above. I changed it to be: "... and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism in the Pacific. " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Cook&diff=1294322637&oldid=1294305716

Reasoning for this change to #3: I think it is indisputable that Cook played a role in colonization (discovering, claiming land for king, ignoring the order to get consent of indigenous, etc). Maybe it was a tiny role, maybe unintentional role ... but he did play a role. The debate is whether he can be held responsible for colonization; or whether he desired it; or whether he "facilitated" it. In any case, the encyclopedia's voice should not say or imply that Cook had no role in the entire process of colonization. Other than that, the word "allegations" seems adequate and accurate. Noleander (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

What do the sources state exactly? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

About Cook's role in colonization? Not sure, I have not yet started looking for sources.

The article already contains this sentence: In the lead-up to the commemorations, various memorials to Cook in Australia and New Zealand were vandalised, and there were public calls for their removal or modification due to their alleged promotion of colonialist narratives.[280][281] (Emphasis added). But those cites are minor news reports.

The article also has Cook is a controversial figure due several violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism. (Emphasis added). But that sentence has no citations at all.

The article already has a few sources that talk about the allegations, such as Tombs (an opinion piece in a newspaper) and Proctor (an art historian). Some of his major biographies, especially the newer ones, have discussion of his role in colonization, but they tend to be superficial, amounting to a few sentences ... at least they are a good starting point.

I'm hoping to find additional, in-depth sources by an academics/scholars, or by a notable proponent of statue removal. Do you have any suggestions? Noleander (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at three Heritage New Zealand reports related to Cook and got these 'There is potential for the Cook Monument to be used more extensively for public education, as an important part of the Cook Landing Site, where the European exploration and colonisation of New Zealand began' and 'To previous generations of Pakeha Cook has been seen as the 'true' founder of New Zealand, the Englishman who discovered the islands and thus made them available for colonisation by the British. As James Belich said, 'Cook was the first of a Pakeha pantheon of deified ancestors'. Such a portrayal of him led to the creation of numerous memorials built in his honour throughout New Zealand. Current opinion about Cook, however, ranges from his continued deification to a view of him as an agent of colonisation.' 'Though his legacy is complex and contested, he is nevertheless acknowledged as one of the most influential figures in Aotearoa/New Zealand and international history, both for his individual qualities and achievements and as a representative of ideas and themes around exploration and discovery, Enlightenment-era scientific endeavour and colonisation.'

Otherwise I don't know any particular place to look beyond just focusing on academic sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those links! Noleander (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would return to the earlier, simpler version of this section:

The period 2018 to 2021 marked the 250th anniversary of Cook's first voyage of exploration. Several countries, including Australia and New Zealand, arranged official events to commemorate the voyage, leading to widespread public debate about Cook's legacy and the violence associated with his contacts with Indigenous peoples.[2][3] In the lead-up to the commemorations, various memorials to Cook in Australia and New Zealand were vandalised, and there were public calls for their removal or modification due to their alleged promotion of colonialist narratives.[4][5] There were also campaigns for the return of Indigenous artefacts taken during Cook's voyages.[6][d] Attacks on public monuments to Cook have continued in a number of countries.[8][9][10][11]

Alice Proctor argues that the controversies over public representations of Cook and the display of Indigenous artefacts from his voyages are part of a broader debate over the decolonisation of museums and public spaces and resistance to colonialist narratives.[12] A number of commentators argue that Cook enabled British imperialism and colonialism in the Pacific.[2][12][13][14][e]

Robert Tombs has defended Cook, arguing: "He epitomised the Age of Enlightenment in which he lived" and in conducting his first voyage "was carrying out an enlightened mission, with instructions from the Royal Society to show 'patience and forbearance' towards native peoples".[15]"

This summarises the issues concisely without undue focus on specific examples (such as the Canadian example tearing down a statue of Cook during a protest about Catholic Indigenous schools--which Cook had nothing to do with) and without unnecessarily going into the specifics of the multitude of different arguments for and against Cook as a coloniser and for and against tearing down statues of him. The recent attempts to expand this section will lead us down a rabbit hole of people adding the latest act of vandalism/legitimate direct action or the latest piece of post-modernist cultural criticism by some minor academic (eg kitsch statues.) The basic issue is simple: Cook was a major explorer who increased scientific knowledge of the world and deserves to be commemorated v Cook was a violent coloniser and all memorials to him in settler colonies should be removed. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

As a compromise, I have removed the discussion of the Canadian case which gives it undue weight. Details of individual attacks should be in footnotes for the reasons I stated above.. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There are still problems with the wording, viz:

"Cook is a controversial figure due several violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and allegations that he facilitated British colonialism."

Scholars continue to debate the extent to which Cook can be held responsible for the subsequent European colonisation of the Pacific. A number of commentators argue that Cook enabled British imperialism and colonialism in the Pacific."

This is very repetitive. We are saying three time that some people think Cook was responsible for colonialism.

"Cook and his crew killed an estimated 45 indigenous people during the three voyages, including nine Māori and thirty Hawaiians." True, but it lacks balance. If we are going to quote this isolated estimate, we need to attribute it to Thomas in text and put it in the context of his entire argument. Once again, probably beyond the scope of this section.

"Historian Glyndwr Williams points out that the Admiralty's orders to Cook on the first voyage explicitly required Cook to obtain consent of indigenous peoples before claiming the land for Britain – yet Cook claimed the east coast of Australia without securing their consent."

This is true, but the context makes it sound like Williams is one of those arguing that Cook was a colonialist. he isn't. If we are going to put this isolated fragment in we need to accurately summarise his entire argument: a task beyond this section.

"Historian Robert Tombs defended Cook against accusations that he initiated British imperialism in the Pacific, arguing that European influence in the region was inevitable, and that Cook was more humane and enlightened than most of his contemporaries. Tombs suggested that blaming Cook for 21st century racism and inequities is facile and avoids addressing the underlying social issues."

Probably a fair summary, although I don't think anyone is arguing that Cook initiated colonisation in the Pacific. There were several before him. Tomes is probably given undue weight in this context. It was previously balanced against the Proctor discussion.

I don't mean to be hypercritical. I am just trying to point out that we face a choice between a very concise overview of the main issue versus more detailed summaries of the position prominent commentators take on the issue. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries, you're not being hypercritical ... you're being a good editor. I agree that the Controversy section requires a lot of work: it is far, far from being complete, neutral, and engaging. It is a work in progress, and can be a lot better. I'm a firm believer in the anyone-can-edit philosophy, so I hope anyone with ideas for improvements jumps in! Gathering more sources is always a good starting point. Noleander (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

... And if anyone has suggestions for improvements, but they're short on time, I'll be happy to help implement the suggestions. Let me know what should be changed and what the sources are and I'll take it from there. Noleander (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

'Alleges' is fine. The word being used thrice over a reasonably sized article is not terrible. Will Thorpe (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I added these words to the footnote re death of Cook's first son:

Son James was appointed commander of sloop Spitfire in January 1794 and died soon thereafter in an open boat accident near the Isle of Wight. A researcher speculated that the son faked his own death.

Source is a Times book review at

• https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/captain-cooks-son-was-navy-deserter-who-faked-his-own-death-gxmvzpc0t

of book

• https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Untold_Story_of_Captain_James_Cook_R/zX_-EAAAQBAJ

Already I'm regretting adding this, since the source is merely a non-academic historical researcher who came up with an interesting theory. It seemed important five minutes ago, because it suggests Captain Cook may have descendants. I'll probably delete it. But at least the source is documented here in the Talk page for future reference. Noleander (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The author of the book tried to add this last year and the consensus was not to include it as it is fringe. Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Interesting about the author. Thanks for deleting it. Noleander (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Another review. Not worth mentioning even as a rumour I think. —Kusma (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch I changed Aoraki / Mount Cook to just Mount Cook for that section as the relevant part is not the mountain but rather the name. Including the Maori name may imply that it is also related to Captain Cook when it isn't. This done in other articles e.g. Ōhinerau / Mount Hobson when the focus is the etymology of a name. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I figured to use the common name here (article title is Aoraki / Mount Cook). I see no good reason to remove the Māori name, or the common name. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Well I gave a good reason, to avoid any confusion. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

A peer reviewer suggested that the Family section seemed out of place, since there was an abrupt jump from 1755 (end of "Early Life" section) to 1762 (marriage); then jumps back to 1755 (start of "Canada" section).

Cook got married in 1762, which was - unfortunately for this article - right in the middle of the Canada phase of his career. So, if we wanted to go chronologically, maybe the Family section should be after the Canada section?

Another solution is to devote the Upper 90% of the article body to Cook's career, and put the "personal life" details near the bottom. To see how that would look, I have tentatively moved the "Family" section down to lower in article, above the "Arms" section. This is a tentative change only, for evaluation. I had to disable the image of Cooks wife since it encroached on Arms section.

Possible positions include:

1. Leave in original location, after Early Life; before Canada
2. After Canada section
3. Near bottom of article, above Arms section (with or without picture of wife? Image badly encroaches on Arms section)
4. Some other location?

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I would put the Family section immediately before Legacy. If we are going to mention which church he went to then perhaps calling the section Private Life or something similar might be better. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Personal life perhaps? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Moved to immed before Legacy section. Renamed to "Personal life", which is a fairly common section name used in WP for biographical articles (and makes it easier to add miscellaneous non-career information in the future, should the need arise).

The image of Cook's wife is still disabled in this new location, because it would impinge on the pic of the K1 Chronometer in the following Legacy/Navigation section. Conceivably, we could restore the image of his wife by re-arranging subsections within Legacy, but no need to resolve that now ... can wait a bit and see if the new "Personal life" section location sticks. Noleander (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Portrait of wife restored and enlarged to same size as Hodges portrait of Cook above. K1 looks after itself, I think. Errantios (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion from a recent Peer Reviewer says that the Commemorations seems a bit too big, I tend to agree. Seems like the only way to condense it is to remove some of the minor monuments/commemorations. The minor ones could be deleted entirely, or pushed down into footnotes (and perhaps deleted at a later date, after editors have had time to view the results). Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I, for one, do not see the need. These commemorations and their breadth are reflective of Cook's cultural significance Will Thorpe (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you be more specific: what dividing line are you proposing for which commemorations are included, and which are included (I'm sure there are scores that are not yet included in the article). See WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

What do you think of creating a new sub-article to contain 100% of the commemoration info, and then adjust the Commemorations section in this article per Wikipedia:Summary style and WP:DETAIL?

For reference, see List of places named for Christopher Columbus and List of monuments and memorials to Christopher Columbus Noleander (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I discovered that there is already a list article List of places named after James Cook. I just created List of commemorations of Captain James Cook, and simply copied the section from this article (James Cook#Commemorations ) into it. It may be wisest to mimic the approach used in Christopher_Columbus#Commemoration, where a place name list is not found at all in the main article, but there is a summary discussion of commemoratiosn ... the latter is prose, not a list. Noleander (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that the List of commemorations of Captain James Cook article has been created, I'm planning on condensing the Commemorations section (per WP:Summary style) to contain some top-level prose ... and provide a "main" link to direct readers to List of commemorations of Captain James Cook for further details & exhaustive lists of monuments. As mentioned above, this is following the useful pattern seen at Christopher_Columbus#Commemoration. Noleander (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I support this. Good work! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Aye, good concept! Will Thorpe (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting to search for better sources for the Controversy section (a topic which has a lot of overlap with the Commemoration section, since much of the controversy involves monuments) I've found a handful of academic sources, so - if all goes well - these can be used for some material in lieu of the newspapers articles that form much of the current content in the Controversy section.

I've found several journal articles. An interesting source is the chapter "The uses of Captain Cook: early exploration in the public history of Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia " in the book Rethinking settler colonialism. The author is Nicholas Thomas (anthropologist). It is chapter 7 in :

 title={Rethinking settler colonialism: History and memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa},
 author={Coombes, A.},
 isbn={9781526121547},
 series={Studies in Imperialism},
 url={https://books.google.com/books?id=-28CEAAAQBAJ},
 year={2017},
 publisher={Manchester University Press}

Noleander (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I requested a copy of the book detailed above a little while ago and have just read the chapter concerned. Whilst it gives some view of the perception of Cook both historically and at the time the book was written, it was printed in 2006. It is presuming a lot to think that there is no further update needed to the subject from 19 years ago. I think the only useful bit is the restatement of Cook's assessment on the people he encountered ("the Natives of New Holland", as he calls them). I wonder what the most up-to-date thinking is of Cook's "They live in a tranquillity which is not disturbed.....[etc.]". To me the whole passage seems of some significance, seeing how things turned out after Cook's time, but then I am not an RS.

My read (and I think Thomas's) on the quoted Cook passage, is that Cook's mission had included examining what opportunities there were for trade with the indigenous inhabitants that he encountered. Cook is trying to rationalise why they did not have any interest in bartering for goods offered to them by members of Cook's party. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

A peer reviewer suggested relying more on recent sources, and de-emphasizing older sources such as Beaglehole and Hough (since they did not have access to as much primary source material as post-2000 authors). That seems wise ... also because the more recent authors are more likely to incorporate more information about viewpoints of and impact to indigenous peoples. So, I'm adding some citations from Nelson Thomas' book Cook: The Extraordinary Voyages of Captain James Cook. When done, I'll make a second pass through the article to see if any of the Beaglehole or Hough citations are redundant, and can be deleted. In some cases, the older sources will be retained, because they may have some insight or fact that the newer source(s) do not. Until that second pass, there may be some redundant citations. Noleander (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns about de-emphasising older sources as a matter of principle. In some subject areas, there is a definitive source or set of sources that covers a subject so completely that there is little room in the market for a publisher to put out any new works on the subject. Cook is such a high profile figure that there will always be new books, but many of these rely on the older sources (such as Beaglehole) for their material. In some instances, this can lead to a game of Chinese whispers, where the original source is subject to a sort of "genetic drift" away from its intent.

Certainly, academic authors who use Cook as a source on ship-handling (for instance) go straight to Beaglehole. For example an academic book review in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology cites Beaglehole as evidence to support the thesis in the reviewed book that a brig had better sailing properties than a schooner.^[1] I find it strange that Wikipedia feels that "old is necessarily bad". If there is an update in thinking or if there is new research, new publications should be used. But where an older work has exactly the same content as a new one, there is no reason to swap out the old source. Any changes should only be made with careful examination of the reasons on a case by case basis. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries, when the peer reviewer made that comment, they were specifically focusing on topics that were somewhat subjective (opinion of Forster, views on indigenous peoples, Cook's personality, etc). The peer reviewer stated, accurately, that scholars that write newer sources have access to (a) more primary materials that have been uncovered/published; and (b) access to recent scholarship (anthropology, ethnography, linguistics, etc) that were unavailable in the 1970s. If there are two sources that both contain the same fact/information, it doesn't really matter which one is used. Re Any changes should only be made with careful examination of the reasons on a case by case basis. ... I agree, and that is what I'm doing. And I'm not suggesting a limit of one source per fact/sentence: in many instances, it benefits readers to supply multiple citations for a single fact/sentence ... when each source provides a unique perspective or insight. Noleander (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

References

A topic that is not yet in the article is sexually transmitted diseases. Since a critical part of that topic involves the long-term ramifications after the voyages, it probably belongs in the Legacy section. The Legacy section currently has two subsections (among others) named "Science" and "Navigation". The Science section already has a paragraph about scurvy, which is a disease.

To accommodate the new STD topic, I propose to re-organize the "Science" and "Navigation" subsections into these two subsections:

• Science and Navigation - Navigation, chronometer, anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, botany, etc
• Health and disease - Scurvy; hygeine/health of crew; STDs (introduction to indigenous peoples, Cook's attempts to prevent transmission, etc)

This would not involve deleting any material: simply renaming sections and moving a couple of paragraphs. Again, the purpose is to create a subsection to hold a few new sentences (not yet in article) about STDs. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

To help visualize what it would look like, I made the change in the article. The new STD material is six sentences. The new subsections within Legacy section are:

• James_Cook#Health_and_disease
• James_Cook#Navigation_and_science

If anyone sees a way to improve the text or organization, let me know. Noleander (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I closed the Peer Review .. it had great input from two reviewers. I'm planning to nominate for Good Article soon. I think the article is in pretty good shape for GA. The only thing I can see that needs work (for GA status) is the Controversy section: it is not very cohesive, and does not have a professional flow - but the GA reviewer may find it satisfactory; and if the GA reviewer is not satisfied, they may be able to specify particular improvements. If anyone sees something in the article that is definitely not GA-quality, let me know. Noleander (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)