Talk:James Cook/Archive 7

I know it's trivial, but I was thinking "He first saw combat during the Seven Years' War, when he fought in the Seige of Louisberg" might sound better than "He first saw combat in the Seven Years' War, when he fought in the Seige of Louisberg." Carlstak (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Carlstak Thanks for reviewing the recent changes... appreciate it! Go ahead and make the change; or I can, if you don't have time. Noleander (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Just wanted to say that you're doing a great job. Carlstak (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The lead has ...mapped much of the entrance to the St. Lawrence River during the Siege of Quebec. The link Siege of Quebec takes the reader to Battle of the Plains of Abraham, which is a bit confusing - especially in the lead (see MOS:EASTEREGG).

WP has a disambiguation page Siege of Quebec which lists several articles:

• Siege of Quebec (1759), prior to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham
• Siege of Quebec (1760), an unsuccessful French attempt to retake Quebec City from the British
• Siege of Quebec (1775), after the Battle of Quebec between American forces and British defenders

and it also lists the disabmibguation page Battle of Quebec which lists:

• Battle of Quebec (1690), a failed English assault during the War of the Grand Alliance
• Battle of Quebec (1759) -- a redirect to Battle of the Plains of Abraham
• Battle of Quebec (1760) or Battle of Sainte-Foy, a battle outside the city during the Seven Years' War
• Battle of Quebec (1775), a failed American assault during the American Revolutionary War

Since there is so much opportunity for confusion with the unqualified phrase "Siege of Quebec", the text (seen by the reader) should probably be replaced with Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the obvious remedy is to change the link to [[Siege of Quebec (1759)|Siege of Quebec]]. The logic is that there was a lot of naval activity prior to the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Cook was involved in that activity. (Anyway, the Battle is a subset of the Siege.) The only problem that we have is that the target article (Siege of Quebec (1759)) does not measure up to the standards of accuracy on Cook's involvement that I hope and feel that we have in this article. The solution is to fix the problem in the Siege of Quebec (1759). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that this part of the lead does not really summarise what the main body of the article says on the subject. There we find two threads of information relative to surveying prior to the ultimate capture of Quebec. First there is the development of "Preliminary charts" for the entrance to the St Lawrence. Then there is the work done by Cook (among others) on surveying the river as the fleet approached close to Quebec, with shoals being updated on charts and marked in the river. (I think the main article text has somehow overtaken the sentence in the lead.)
Incidentally, the distance from Gaspé (where Cook was involved in punitive expeditions against the resident French after the fall of Louisbourg) to Quebec is something around 300 miles. L'Isle-aux-Coudres, where the navigation of the narrowing river gets complicated, is 60 miles from Quebec. Therefore, the 1759 advance to Quebec was a significant advance up a little-known river. (Cook and Holland's output was a chart titled A New Chart of the River St. Lawrence from the Island of Anticosti to the Falls of Richelieu: with all the Islands, Rocks, Shoals, and Soundings. (Suthren, Victor. To Go Upon Discovery: James Cook and Canada, from 1758 to 1779 (p. 70). Anticosti is offshore of Gaspé.)
I think we need to have another go at summarising the two aspects of Cook's involvement in the advance on Quebec: the chart of the entrance to the river (largely him and Holland) and small boat surveying to mark a route through the Traverse and on up to Quebec (Cook and all the other available Masters and Master's Mates, plus some captured French river pilots working under duress). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the link, as you suggested, to [[Siege of Quebec (1759)|Siege of Quebec]] . As far as re-writing the sentences in the lead, can we wait until the FA review is completed? Noleander (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

On re-writing the sentence in the lead, I am no expert on FA reviews, but isn't this something a reviewer should spot? Fine if it isn't. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting.... It'll only be a few more weeks. The editors that volunteer to perform FA reviews have a variety of strengths: some are subject matter experts, some focus on prose quality, some focus on the quality of sourcing, some focus on image copyright issues, some focus on compliance with the Manual of Style ... they each bring different perspectives to their reviews. Noleander (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Kerguelen island in the lead, which stated: "He mapped coastlines, islands, and features across the globe in greater detail than previously charted, including the Kerguelen Islands..." However, nowhere in the article does it say that Cook charted this island in greater detail than previously, and the cited source (Beaglehole (1974)) does not support it. Beaglehole (p 514) states: "Cook, knowing little about him [Kerguelen] beyond what he had picked up from Crozet, not knowing even that Kerguelen had made two voyages (there was no published work till 1782), knowing nevertheless that he had to do merely with an island of no very great extent, was willing to take for granted the coasts already charted. He contented himself with a running, and for the time he could spare for it, fairly accurate, survey of the northern and eastern coasts that had not been seen before." So I don't think we should single Kerguelen out in the lead as an example of the accuracy of Cook's charts. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Sensible change. Noleander (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

An FA reviewer asked for a small bit of material to be added to the article "... I'd especially like to see coverage (at least a paragraph) of Cook's reputation in the centuries between his death and the modern era.". Sources Williams and Blainey have some good info (specifically: There was a lot of Cook worship in England in the years immediately following his death; then Cook's reputation was kind of dormant from 1785 to 1870s; then Australia & NZ began promoting Cook as a founding father; in Hawaii there was the trajectory influenced by US missionaries, etc). I'll look for other sources also. If anyone has any thoughts, let me know. Noleander (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably off-topic, but I was surprised to discover how recently James Cook University Hospital was renamed from "South Cleveland Hospital". This happened in 2001 "to reflect the local heritage and growing academic links" (according to the article on the hospital, where you will find a reference to support this). AI tells us that there is no real criticism of the name chosen for the hospital (there are always other things to complain about with a hospital). I live on the periphery of the area for which it provides tertiary services and have not heard any criticism of its name in local news or in the Health Service Journal, for which I have only recently allowed my subscription to lapse. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented the request of the FA reviewer: new material on Cook's reputation between death & 21st century. It is the new subsection at James_Cook#Reputation_and_influence. I tried, but I was not able to fit it into a single paragraph. If anyone sees any errors or issues, feel free to fix them, or notify me, and I'll take care of it. If there are any subjective aspects that require a lengthy discussion, it may be best to wait until after the FA review is complete (late October?) but - of course - anyone can edit the article anytime. Noleander (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to cut this down a bit but it still covers much of the same ground as the following section. I think we only need one section to cover his reputation from death to today. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, your changes all look good. Agree that the two merged sections are indeed a single, cohesive topic. Noleander (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

@Errantios: In your first revert you asserted that "Formal identity of his country is important, especially when claiming territory for it". The edit you restored does not accomplish that, and in the first two cases is not the appropriate place to attempt to accomplish that. You're welcome to propose wording that might do a better job for the last, but in the interim the previous version should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I had just been unable to see reasons for your changes. Will address the two cases for their own peculiarities.

• Birthplace: “England” is of course correct and could be sufficient, but (apparently like the editor who wrote it) I had thought it better to specify “Great Britain” for a naval officer (and see note ‘h’) and moreover one who conducted intensive relations with foreign rulers; however, “Great Britain” might seem pedantic there and the issue will perhaps be covered by next.
• Territorial claims: it seems to me to be very important to specify that the territorial claims were made on behalf of “Great Britain”; but it does seem enough to say this in the lede and let the body manage (several times) with ”Britain”.
• In short, I’d agree with “England” for birthplace in the infobox and with “Great Britain” in connection with territorial claims in the lede. Errantios (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Errantios (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

This looks like a useful source on Cook and scurvy, though I'm unsure whether or how to add it: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2021/february/finding-cure-scurvy. Errantios (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying that source. The section James_Cook#Health_and_disease is the home of most scurvy-related materials ... tho the disease is mentioned in a couple other places in the article. The Stubbs source (already cited in the article) makes it clear that Cook was not as accurate with his solution as the Copley medal might lead one to think:

• Stubbs, Brett (2003). "Captain Cook's Beer: The Antiscorbutic Use of Malt and Beer in Late 18th Century Sea Voyages". Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 12 (2): 129–137. ISSN 0964-7058. PMID 12810402.

See footnote [ad]:

Cook's paper on scurvy incorrectly concluded that sweet wort and malt were important to preventing scurvy. In fact, scurvy is prevented by eating foods that contain vitamin C, such as citrus fruits. Prior to Cook's first voyage, some British physicians, such as James Lind and Nathaniel Hulme, had concluded that citrus fruits were a solution, but Cook did not adopt that recommendation. The wort and malt identified by Cook did not contain vitamin C. Cook's success with scurvy was due to frequent replenishment of fresh food, and to various plant materials sometimes brewed into the beer prepared on ship. Cook's erroneous conclusion delayed the adoption of successful antiscorbutic measures by the Royal Navy.

So the article probably shouldn't emphasize scurvy much more than it already does. (Plus the WP:SIZERULE guidance). Noleander (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Quite. Thank you. Errantios (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Cook's pre-naval career includes:
After obtaining his mariner licence in 1752 he was promoted to the rank of master's mate and began serving on the collier brig Friendship.
The reference is Hough.
I see problems with using the term master's mate in this context, including with the link.
(a) The source uses the unmodified term "mate" to describe this position, not "master's mate".
(b) "Master's mate" is generally understood to be a naval rank. This is a merchant navy position. (I appreciate that the OED has a somewhat confused and confusing definition II.5.a. at , but the track record of the OED on maritime terminology is, at best, patchy. If required, I can readily provide a number of examples where the OED disagrees with specialist nautical glossaries, in some instance with the nautical publication expressing exasperation at the OED's ineptness.)
(c) I appreciate that the linked article master's mate does finish with a few words on the merchant navy situation, but the reader has to trawl through a lot of irrelevant material to get there, and what you find is based on the OED entry complained about under (b).
(d) At first sight, a link to Mate (naval officer) might be considered appropriate, but that article is not one of Wikipedia's finest, being written almost without references. Nor is the title of this potential link particularly helpful (it's a merchant navy role, not a naval one). I would not recommend this, as it provides nothing to help the reader of this article. Neither are articles such as Chief mate helpful, as it covers just the present day situation, and with the lightest possible use of references.

I suggest that the article text is altered to say "...promoted to the rank of mate and began serving....". If someone wants to research an addition of a "history" section to Seafarer's professions and ranks (another problem article!!) – or some similar article, then the link could be directed there. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In absence of any comment, I have just implemented this change. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 14:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

A change was made here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Cook&diff=1318792066&oldid=1318604097 that contained quite a few changes, maybe a couple of dozen, by User:TeAoTeHuia. Some of the changes look fine, some need the sourcing validated, and some look like they may be in the wrong place (too much detail in lead).

Links to Tahitians were changed to links to Maohi.

There may be some POV issues, I'm not sure. Example: change from

Despite knowledge of the deaths, Cook treated the Māori with respect, even inviting them into his cabin. Some members of Cook's crew were confused and angered by their leader's failure to take revenge.

to

Feeling guilty as he knew he and his crew had done bad unto Māori, and had deserved their treatment, Cook treated the Māori with respect, inviting them into his cabin. Some ignorant members of Cook's crew were confused and angered by their leader's failure to take revenge.

And a change from a group of Hawaiians stole one of Cook's... to a group of Hawaiians karmically stole one of Cook's ...

This change is factually wrong: at least 45 indigenous people were killed by Cook's crew, to at least 45 indigenous people were instantly killed by Cook's crew...

To get consensus on the changes, I reverted them, so we can first discuss here on the Talk page.

TeAoTeHuia: would you mind discussing the changes here in the Talk page? Maybe break them down into pieces so we can go over them one at a time? PS: The article is in the middle of the WP:Featured Article process, and has about one more week to go. So, it would be great if you could wait another week (or until Talk page consensus) before changing the article. That would be appreciated. Noleander (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

These are pretty clearly POV changes and just poor quality edits overall e.g. 'instantly killed'. I don't think there is much to discuss here Traumnovelle (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The article was promoted to Featured Article status today. The gold star should appear within 48 hours. Thanks to everyone who worked on the article and made it what it is.

If anyone was waiting for the FA process to finish so they could make a major enhancement to the article, the wait is over. Of course, please try to keep any changes consistent with FA criteria. If you are not sure about the FA criteria, I'm happy to assist. The article's Talk page archive has a list of conventions used in this article.

There is a process that demotes articles if their quality falls below FA standards, which is something to avoid. If anyone notices edits that are not FA quality, and don't have time to investigate or remedy the situation, let me know and I should be able to take care of it.

Thanks again, it was a long haul, but worth it! Noleander (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander Congratulations to you and all other crew! Errantios (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! Thoroughly deserved. Hope you enjoy some shore leave. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

GettingSwole has added this article to Category:Deified men – I wonder whether that makes sense? The article says: "Cook was considered by some indigenous peoples to be an ariki (high chief), and therefore the embodiment of the powers and attributes of certain atua (Polynesian gods).... Many Hawaiians thought Cook was an embodiment of the Polynesian god Lono."

Category:Deified people say: "This category is for human beings who have been worshipped as deities or divine beings". And Apotheosis says it's about "the glorification of a subject to divine levels".

I don't see evidence for Cook being particularly worshipped or glorified by anybody, hence I have some doubts about the appropriateness of that category. Gawaon (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Footnote [aj] has a good summary ("Regarding the differences between atua and Western gods, ..."). I don't think he was worshiped in any meaningful way. And he was not considered a "god" in the normal Western sense. From the descriptions of the category, it would probably be imprecise to include him. The absence of written historical, contemporary records by the Hawaiians doesn't help. Noleander (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't need to exclusively define deity in the Western sense. GettingSwole (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Deification, however, is a far more specialized term. And we don't do OR here, so unless Cook is explicitly described as "deified man" in reliable sources, we cannot do so either. Gawaon (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@GettingSwole - Perhaps you could first update the category description (in the category page) to use broader wording, so it clearly encompasses non-western concepts (such as ancestor spirits, etc). That might also help avoid confusion for many other (future) articles. If the category definition is broadened, then the inclusion of JC may be more of a slam dunk. Noleander (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to do that! Let me know if my rewrite works. GettingSwole (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)