Talk:James Cook/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Map request

I'd really like to see maps detailing the routes of his three voyages. --zandperl 22:26, 19 February 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I could draw such a map (I have more than one book in which they appear, and redrawing should be under the "information is not copyrightable" idea), if someone can give me a "naked map" to draw it upon. Andre Engels 10:20, 20 February 2004 (UTC)

I now uploaded a map, however this one is only good for showing the first voyage. Andre Engels 19:58, 22 February 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if the article should say he discovered hawaii and australia. He just let the Europeans know about it. The australian people already knew of it. Shouldn't the article come from a NPOV. just a question. BrokenSegue 19:58, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I like the approach the Hawaii article took saying, "Vague reports by various European explorers suggest that Hawai‘i was visited by foreigners well before the 1778 arrival of British explorer Captain James Cook. Cook was credited for the discovery after having been the first to plot and publish the geographical coordinates of the Hawaiian Islands. Cook named his discovery the Sandwich Islands in honor of one of his sponsors, John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich." I guess information along those lines should be appropriate for this article. --Gerald Farinas 02:29, 12 September 2004 (UTC)

VD and Cook's death

I have read that Cook had allowed, um, fraternization, between his crew members and the beautiful, friendly, willing Hawaian women. But that between his penultimate and ultimate visits Cook's vessels had visited Alaska, where he had allowed fraternization between his crew members and the friendly, willing Aleutians. I read that theRussian explorers had inoculated the Aleutian community with VD, and that had left an epidemic of VD behind. Consequently many of Cook's crew had VD. So, on his final visit, Cook forbid his crew from contacting the Hawaiians.

The Hawaiians were very upset by this decision. The sailors had a habit of giving gifts to their girlfriends. Even a purloine nail held great value for them. And the unexpected cutting off of this source of wealth was disruptive to the economy and political stability of the Hawaiian society.

I think Cook's attempt to prevent an epidemic of VD in Hawaii was commendable.

Anyhow, I think this belongs in the article. I'd add it myself, if I could find an authoritative source to back up my recollection...

Geo Swan 23:38, 15 November 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Cook discouraged relations with native women on each of his voyages. Astragal 14:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet cook was "given" (and accepted) the daughter of one of the Hawaiian chiefs, who became pregnant.

[Captain James Cook; a life full of adventure, triumph, and struggle By Nate Kerl]

89.240.235.239 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems we don't actually know. Here it says it was a deduction :

 : "Once anchored in the Bay that bears his name to this day, Laperouse and a number of his officers and men went ashore. The Frenchmen soon noticed that some of the people showed signs of the venereal disease, syphilis. The ship's surgeon, M. Rollin, examined a number of the people and found that they showed signs of having advanced cases of this disease, which, in Europe would have taken twelve to fifteen years to develop. The fact that Cook had visited these islands but eight years prior and never landed on Maui at all, led Laperouse to conclude that the venereal disease was introduced in the islands before Cook's time. Indeed, the men of Cook's ships wondered how the disease could have traveled so quickly, and spread so widely, amongst the Maui people, by the time of their arrival there, as they had left Kauai but nine months prior. "

More articles seem to mention that he tried to prevent it: "The spread of VD was one of Cook's main preoccupations." Medical aspect and consequences - Captain James Cook and his times

From what I read, James Cook was good in psychology (or at least had a good adviser). (Eg.: While traveling and for health reasons, he wanted everybody eat Sauerkraut (Vitamin C). At that time it wasn't a very known dish and he knew people wouldn't easily accept it. So instead of just obliging everybody, he first gave it only to the aristocratic passengers. This way Sauerkraut was viewed as a refined dish for higher class, and hence envied. Smart move, no? )

So he probably did try to prevent VD. ...but "probably" won't do, we need to be sure. --Cy21 10:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In Cook's Journal (Beaglehole) he says that certain men had VD and were ordered to stay on board. Otherwise, he did not discourage relations. Unfortunately, the women of Kaua'i swam out to the boat. I don't have the book here to give you a page cite but it was on his sighting of Kaua'i. Makana Chai (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Junior officers

Is there a reason "junior officers" is linked to the page listing Russian military ranks?

24.14.153.215 18:44, 18 January 2005 (UTC)

"the sandwich man"

i have read a great deal about cook and NEVER read him referred to as the sandwich man. i'd like to see a source on that.... Astragal 03:34, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

You happened to view the article in a vandalized state, unfortunately. I've fixed it now. Adam Bishop 05:44, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

oh haha i thought it was a weird reference to the earl of... -Astragal 06:29, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

Transit of Venus difficulties

The article describes that Cook's failure to measure the transit of Venus was a result of imprecise scientific instruments. This is untrue. Cook had timepieces and telescopes. Cook's major difficulty was the "Black Drop" effect, which he documented. Observed many times since then, this effect makes precise determination of the two interior contacts a matter of estimation.

• Satellite image of "Black Drop"

-RPellessier 03:59, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to throw in with RPellessier on this. Cook posessed good scientific instruments and I don't believe any sources I've seen relate that he was dissatisfied with their quality or quantity. His diaries clearly indicate that he had enough instruments to distribute to other passengers and crew and disperse them to nearby islands as a hedge against cloudiness. Cook and his other observers were indeed frustrated by the black drop effect. However, even with the "primitive" (by today's standards) scientific instruments and the hindrance of the black drop, Cook and his contemporaries elsewhere in the world took sufficiently accurate measurements of the transit that the distance between Earth and Sun was calculated by Encke, using their data, to be 95 million miles (152,888,000 km), which is within about two percent of the currently accepted value. In short, the story that Cook failed in his astronomical goals is a myth. If no-one else is more qualified to correct this portion of the article, I'll dig up my references and do it when I have a chance. Jeff Medkeff 10:21, 24 January 2005 (UTC)

This article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica describes how Encke used the transits of 1761 and 1769 to determine the solar parallax. But this article does not specifically mention Cook. http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/EMS_EUD/ENCKE_JOHANN_FRANZ_17911865_.html RPellessier 03:07, 25 January 2005 (UTC)

Discovery of Christmas Island

The Selected anniversaries (24 December) listing claims that Christmas Island was discovered by Captain James Cook. Nowhere in the article do I see a mention of this discovery. Kember 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

James Cook University

Just added a little bit in the 'legacy' section about how James Cook Uni in North Qld was named after him, obviously. Dunno if it is the right section though, so feel free to put it wherever you like or do anything. Anyway, see ya. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 13:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

If anyone reads this before I get to a better computer, this page needs reverting back to Scohurst's edit of 13:18, 29 March 2006. Adam Bishop 07:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I see why. Well spotted. Cheers. Moriori 08:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. NOW it is correct. Shucks. Moriori 08:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Adam Bishop 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Finally got round to listing the page at WP:MOSTVANDALIZED as am getting fed up with Aussie schoolkids (predominantly) attacking the article on an almost daily basis. To all those who continue to keep watch on the page, cheers Dick G 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RN

Can somebody explain what does it means (RN)? Thanks. 195.150.224.238 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RN = (British) Royal Navy.--cjllw | TALK 14:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

The revision dated "15:29, 12 October 2005" changed this: 'So, by calculating the time difference from one's starting point at noon, when the sun is exactly on the meridian, one can calculate the longitude.' to this: 'Cook figured that by calculating the time difference from one's starting point at noon, using the position of the sun, one can calculate longitude.'

As much as I admire Cook, it was not Cook himself who came up with the idea. John Harrison (John_Harrison) is the man who invented the marine timepiece that Cook used (and I doubt that even he was the first to realise the link between relative time and longitude).

It seems to me that the original paragraph was intended as an introduction to the following paragraph stating that Cook was the first to use a chronometer in a long distance voyage in order to measure latitude.

I think that both paragraphs should be re-written. Replace the unneeded detail of the 'longitude difficulty' with a short comment containing a reference and a link to both John Harrison and longitude. Then follow up with a statement that Cook used the K1 choronometer to make very accurate charts of the South Pacific. This should remove any ambiguity.

What do you think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/Pelirrojo (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC).

Yes, John Harrison solved the problem of longitude, and was finally, after a long struggle, financially rewarded for it, but the concept of knowing the exact time difference for noon in two places to determine longitude was known long before Cook and Harrison. The chronometers needed to do that was Harrison's work. See Longitude (book) for details.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret Instructions to Cook

I found some "Secret Instructions to Lieutenant Cook 30 July 1768 (UK)" on foundingdocs.gov.au - which seems to be a national library initiative. They basically tell Cook that if he so happened to find any unclaimed land out there that he should take possession of it, and try to get any natives' blessings to set up a colony there. It seems to be extremely important, but I'm not sure how to fit it into the article - help??

• http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=67 - explanation of its significance
• http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw1_doc_1768.pdf - transcript

- 220.237.30.150 01:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This possibly refers to the instructions given to Cook by the Admirality on his first voyage to observe the transit of Venus. He was only to open these instructions once the first stage of the mission had been completed. As I recall from various texts the instructions were to head south and then along a specified latitude to ascertain whether the fabled Terra Australis (AKA the Great Southern Continent) existed and to claim it for the King. I suspect the Admirality would have included the wording you have described in any such instructions. Would suggest looking back at source texts re the above. Dick G 09:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes 220.237.30.150, the instructions were secret, then, but not now. And they don't reveal any conspiracies or whatever. Just the admiralty wallahs keeping things close to their chests, just as govts and corporations do today. Moriori 11:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be in the article, though. I mean, an Aussie might know about these instructions as general knowledge, but it's another thing entirely to read the actual documents for yourself. Even if all of the 'conspiracies' related to the letter are gone (although some would say native title is slightly related...), and even if everyone at the time knew that there was a 'colonising race' going on between the European countries, I think it's still important. - 220.237.30.150 21:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But we shouldn't infer that Cook's voyage, commissioned for astronomy/discovery purposes, was simply a subterfuge to hide ulterior colonisation intentions. Cook wrote "I was ordered, therefore, to proceed directly to Otaheite; and, after the astronomical observations should be completed, to prosecute the design of making discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean by proceeding to the South as far as the latitude of 40 degrees: then, if I found no land, to proceed to the west between 40 and 35 degrees till I fell in with New Zealand, which I was to explore, and thence return to England by such route as I should think proper." Go to http://www.culturelanguage.com.au/ and find the section headed "CREW WELL SATISFIED". It too mentions secret, but it would be hard to take from that any more than the Admiralty not disclosing information which no-one else needed to know. The use of the word "secret" would be grist to the mill for the conspiracy theorists who lurk hereabouts. Moriori 00:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Secondary", then? - 220.237.30.150 00:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

And even if we do have it as secondary, for various purposes, I'm just not sure how to add it in. "Once the observations were completed, Cook then departed in order to execute the secondary purpose of his voyage: namely, to search the south Pacific for signs of the postulated southern continent of Terra Australis, acting on (link to PDF) additional instructions from the Commissioners of the Lord High Admiral of Great Britain." ?? - 220.237.30.150 00:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not truly secondary, because he says his orders were two-part, to make observations at Tahiti and to sail south to make discoveries. It wasn't primary and secondary, but firstly and secondly. . Moriori 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Kū

There is a reference in the 3rd voyage section to the Hawaiian time of war as 'Kū'. Since Kū is the Hawaiian god of war, I have removed the link to Tūmatauenga, the Māori god of war - the connection is too tenuous and I have replaced it with an in-text clarification which works better I think. Kahuroa 08:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lost info

Various vandals have necessitated a number of reverts that have seemingly disruptred the article and, certain sections (from Third Voyage onwards) appear to have been lost (at least in my browser (Mac Safari 2.0.3)). Can someone with more Wiki expertise please rectify? Dick G 15:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it - it wasn't a vandal, it was you my friend! You didn't close the <ref> tags properly - you just had /ref> instead of </ref> and the code you added in the Notes section was wrong too, should have been <references/>. This caused the problemo. Kahuroa 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Was totally confused there. Will teach me to make edits before I have had my first coffee of the day! Thanks again Dick G 07:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

Currently Cook's time in New Zealand is summarized as

Cook managed to reach New Zealand, becoming only the second European in history to do so (after Abel Tasman over a century earlier, in 1642). Cook mapped the complete New Zealand coastline, making only some minor errors (such as calling Banks Peninsula an island, and thinking Stewart Island/Rakiura was part of the South Island). He also discovered Cook Strait, which separates the North Island from the South Island, and which Tasman had not seen.

Not much info. Can I request an expansion on this point? --Midnighttonight 01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Have split the first voyage off into First voyage of James Cook. This will give more room for expansion. --Astrokey44 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lono Contradiction

The text includes these two statements:

"...Cook's arrival on what is now the 'Big Island' of Hawaii coincided by quirk of fate with a season of worship for the Polynesian god Lono."

and

"It is thought that Cook's return to Hawaii outside the season of worship for Lono (Makahiki)..."

It seems to me that both these statements cannot be true.

I beleive the deal is that yes, his visit coincided with the annual visit of the god Lono, some believe causing Cook to be mistaken for the god. But then not long after Cook and his ships had departed a mast snapped, and they were forced to return to Kealekua Bay for repairs. It was during this unplanned and subsequent visit that Cook's agenda was in direct conflict with the Hawaiian ritual schedule. Some believe this was a factor in the escalation of tensions that lead to Cook's death. -Astragal 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That's correct. I wrote both elements into the article originally but can see that there is a confusion. I'll take a look and see if it can be made clearer that it was the return to the island that sparked the confusion/unrest Dick G 15:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Have now clarified timing of Cook's visits in recent amends. Hope that helps Dick G 12:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole notion that the Hawaiian superstitions are a factor in Cook's death have been disputed for 200 years. The article mentions that these were challenged in 1992, but still gives huge emphasis to the idea (although there is no evidence of this whatsoever, it was mere speculation by early historians!) without exploring any of the alternatives in depth. 89.240.235.239 (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Possession Island

Why doesn't the article mention that on 22 August Cook named and landed on Possession Island where we claimed the east coast of Australia for King George III? --58.168.59.32 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Because, User:58.168.59.32, you haven't added that info to the article. Make sure you provide a reference if you do. Moriori 06:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As Moriori suggested you could always WP:Be Bold and make the change yourself. You may want to check the article's existing references, some may already mention Possession Island, and could be used as a basis for a sentence or two in the article about it. Also, it's good practice to sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ after your comment (there's a shortcut below the "Save Page" button that will insert it). -- Mako 07:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

British spellings?

I'm a bit unsure whether British spellings (harbour, favourite) are preferred over American ones (harbor, favorite) in article text (aside from direct quotes). Anyone know? This article is rife with British spellings. Dan 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is, he was British. Why should American spellings be used? Adam Bishop 13:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There's some corner of a foreign web site that is for ever England! Can the non-American English-speakers have some part of the Web to ourselves?--Iacobus 03:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. William Wallace 05:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding the language the article was first written in, i.e. British English, also determines the continuity of the spelling within a Wikipeida article. (Wikipedia:MOS#National varieties of English) Stephenjh 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable achievements

Whilst it is accepted Cook did not "discover" Australia (ref: European exploration of Australia), it is fair to say that he sighted and charted much of the Eastern coastline for the first time for a European and made the first significant (and recorded?) contact with the aboriginal population. He also claimed the lands for the British Crown and identified Botany Bay to an extent that the First Fleet followed shortly after and established the first meaningful settlement on the basis of the voyage's discoveries. Similarly this exercise in charting the Eastern coastline finally put paid to the myth of Terra Australis. This surely must list as an achievement at least equal to the first circumnavigation of Newfoundland?! Hence edits reverted --Dick G 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist...

James Cook was not born in North Yorkshire, he was born in YORKSHIRE! -- 84.64.76.111 (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by this? I can't seem to find a concrete date for the establishment of the Ridings, but they were there before Cook, and Marton was always in the North Riding. Sorry if I'm missing something with this. 41.232.59.34 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

North Yorkshire ≠ the North Riding. North Yorkshire was formed on 1 April 1974. Technically, Cook was born in a part of the historic North Riding of Yorkshire that is part of modern North Yorkshire. But the anachronism is convenient. 59.101.249.148 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Descendents

Does anyone know the names of Cook's siblings, and if they have any descendants, as I understand that all of Cook's children died without issue. Fergananim 20:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

James had a number of siblings - John Cook (died at 23 without issue), Christiana COOK (died at 65 without issue), Mary Cook(died aged 5), Jane Cook (died aged 5), Mary COOK (born 1740 and died less than a year later), Margaret Cook (married James Fleck, and had eight children), and William Cook (died aged 3). The James Cook family tree has been compliled by a group of American genealogists and can be found on this link [1] although the sources of the data are a little unclear. Query whether a link to this URL is worthwhile on the main James Cook page Dick G 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Birth place

I removed "born in Hartlepool" which was addeed (22:05, 26 December 2006) by User:Loryn67 because it says further donw the page that he was born in Marton, North Yorkshire. Belovedfreak 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain Hook

Any connection between J. M. Barrie's character Captain James Hook in Peter Pan and the aforementioned Captain James Cook? --1000Faces 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

yes. also check out "blue latitudes" by tony horowitz for interesting parallels with Star Trek. No joke. --Maunakea 21:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

flags

pictures of flags in the middle that he sailed for in order he sailed. --72.152.60.47 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"far as I think it possible for man to go"

"... farther than any man has been before me, but as far as I think it is possible for a man to go."

quote is a bit out of place where it stands; it comes from his second voyage in the pacific. Putting this before either of his voyages makes it seem if his aspirations towards a place in history predate his voyaging. Read Beaglehole, Nicholas Thomas, etc. and find that this is not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maunakea (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Captain James Cook

He made an exstordanary finding which happened to be Australia. Everone things he was a freak but he was a good and loyal person to poeple didnt know what was beyond their island or land. With captain james cook, he made the world so different that no one could not believe him because they thought he was just telling the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.124.176 (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Circumnavigation?

The wording of the opening of the article suggests that Cook circumnavigated Newfoundland:

"...achieving the first European contact with the eastern coastline of Australia, the European discovery of the Hawaiian Islands, and the first recorded circumnavigation and mapping of Newfoundland and New Zealand."

--Wormholio 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what is the issue you'd like to discuss? JackofOz 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He was the first to map Newfoundland and circumnavigate New Zealand (not the entire world, as a recent edit claimed), but maybe he was the first to circumnavigate Newfoundland as well? That seems unlikely considering how many people had been there in the previous 300 years before Cook, but maybe no one ever went all the way around it, I don't know. Adam Bishop 17:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost in space?

The page is supposed to be about him, & he was a prominent (!) RN officer, so howcum his early ships aren't mentioned? Like Soleday, Pembroke, & Grenville, which I got from Dean & Kemp, but which WP seems not to be connecting to the right ships, if to any at all... D&K say he mastered Solebay first, Pembroke next (when he went to Louisbourg, Grenville next (his first solo act), & had Tobias Furneaux' Adventure in company in March 1773. Montgomery LaForge 05:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your contribution. I think the issue is that Cook is more widely known (for obvious reasons) for his later exploits in the Pacific. The early navy years are often overlooked given what came later. Having said that, there is clearly scope for their inclusion in this article and thanks for putting them in. I would hope that with the work being done at Wikisource this week, the main page could benefit from a bit more interest from editors (I count myself in that!) and a better set of references. Hopefully you'll stay around to help out! Dick G 06:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Map of voyages

I can see how he got to the South Pacific on his second voyages but what was his route home? Also did he travel west to east on his 3rd voyage? Arrows would help Xtrump (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the matter of the map. It has some features which make it quite difficult to understand:

• There are no arrows to indicate directions
• The lines move off the map at various points with no indication of where the voyages went
• The lines are too thick, and obliterate parts of the map, especially at points of conjunction
• Only parts of his voyages are shown. In particular, no one could gather from the map that Cook crossed the Antarctic Circle on his second voyage, nor that he completed a circumnavigation of the earth at a high latitude. These were surely the high points of the second voyage.

I don't know what can be done with the map. Perhaps a clever cartographer could improve it, and more explanatory text could be added?

There is also an error in the text relating to the second voyage. It says that on 17 January 1773 Cook reached 71°10'S. In fact, on that date he crossed the Antarctic circle, but retreated almost immediately, at around 67°S. It was a year later, on 31 January 1774, that he reached the 71°10'S mark. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, Cook reached latitude 67°15'S on 17 January 1773 in longitude 39°35'E,

and latitude 71°10'S on 30 January 1774 in longitude 106°54'W. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try working on some new maps over the next couple days. I'll be back here with updates, and I'll post the new map(s?) at my sandbox when they're finished, plus a link here to my sandbox. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've hit a few snags, primarily due to the lack of accurate maps on the internet, but the maps are coming along, and should be ready by Monday or Tuesday (at the latest). AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Will you also change the text regarding Cook's latitudes? Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at those things as well, as it's all tied in with the maps in a way. You're right about the dates and the latitudes, the 71°10'S 106°54'W would have been much later in his second voyage. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Southern Land

The greatest legacy from Cook, at least at the time, was that he showed that the "great southern continent" did not exist. It had been believed for centuries that there was a large continent in the south to "balance" the Eurasian continent in the north (and which might have had untold wealth). Tasman before him had shown that Australia was not part of it but had then found part of New Zealand which could have been part of it. To possibly find and claim it was really the main purpose of Cook's first and second voyages. His first voyage showed that NZ was not part of it and his second greatly reduced the possible size of any southern continent(s).

Australian's would also say another great legacy is the discovery (and charting) of the east coast of Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.189.185 (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Consequences with Native Peoples

I find the article lacks info or at least links to several extinct tribes of people from various islands he visited. Many died from disease, clothing, and impact of contact with Europeans. I can excuse the lack of info in relation to the eventual deaths caused by other later Europeans, but there are at least 2 entire groups who became extinct as a direct result. Can such info be applied to this section as a contrast to his achievements? Or is it merely a subject reserved for other data and historical research? <V Guyver>

I agree. This article doesn't mention any of the detrimental effects Cook's voyages had on the natives he and his crew made contact with. Perhaps this article should add a section, or link to another article, describing the sufferings and deaths of many populations in the South Pacific (particularly Tahitians) from contracting venereal disease due to relations with Cook's men. 69.169.151.67 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)<K Holm>

First Voyage

I have made two changes to the first voyage section and thought I'd explain as one of them was changing a quote. Also I don't know how to put in a ref so could somebody please do that for me (and maybe explain it as I tried to mimic another ref and it ended up wrong).

Contact vs Observation

I changed "first recorded contact" to "first recorded direct observation" as I think contact gives an impression of something more than just sighting. I also put in 'direct' rather than "first recorded observation" as I think they had seen evidence of inhabitants prior to this - I have reservations about this though as it seems a bit ungainly (rather than "first recorded observation"). I don't know if people agree with the contact/observation difference, if you don't revert it.

Quote

The quote that was used before was, "four or five ... Indians ... naked and very black." I have no idea where this came from and so I have copied the relevant part of Captain Cook's journal for the day (namely, "...and were so near the Shore as to distinguish several people upon the Sea beach they appear'd to be of a very dark or black Colour but whether this was the real colour of their skins or the C[l]othes they might have on I know not.") I took from here: http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/cook/17700422.html - please also add this as a reference.

Thanks Jgillett (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

Why did my addition to the article removed? James Cook DID come up with the theory that Polynesians originated in Asia and I DID cite my source.67.165.136.53 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is the edit you're talking about. Another editor removed it as unsourced because you didn't cite where you found the information. Take a look at WP:CITE for more information about doing this, or feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have more questions. About the addition itself, it would probably be fine to add provided it has a proper citation, but I don't think it needs its own section. Incorporating the information into an already existing section may be the way to go; as it was, the new section was a bit too small. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed this text from the article and placed it here for discussion and suggestions. Here is the text: "James Cook also established the theory that the Polynesians came originally from Asia, which was later proved to be true using DNA testing." Seraphim♥Whipp 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The first attempt was removed because you didn't cite a source. The second attempt was integrated into the article by me. That is, I moved it from its own tiny section into the larger section called legacy. I did not alter the text, but I linked to the article on Bryan Sykes, and I moved the source from the "References" section to become an inline reference, because the source covers this specific fact, not the life of Cook in general. In short, your second attempt was successful, and I made a minor change to it.

Your third attempt was obviously because you didn't see the change I'd made, and you added material which was already in the article. I have removed the attempt to add the reference again, because it's already in the notes section.

Please read the "history" link for the article; you'll see that experienced editors add a brief edit summary which explains their edits.-gadfium 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Map still not fixed

Cming back to this page after a couple of months, I'm a bit disappointed to see no progress on the map. Is there any chance of this? I have now corrected the text with regard to the date of Cook's furthest south (see discussion above). Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, being the WikiSloth that I am, I made the maps nearly two months ago, then spent the rest of the time saying "I'll upload them in a couple of days". Anyway, they're here, and available for viewing either at my sandbox or at my illustrations page. I made four in all, three for each specific voyage, and one showing all three. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

They're excellent. No idea how you made them but super job. I vote for the composite map of all voyages to be used on the main JC page. The others should be used on the articles that accompany each voyage (in the case of the 2nd and 3rd voyages, as and when they are completed). Many thanks for doing those. Dick G (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and put in the new map. For size, I went with 600px, which is somewhat large, but it is still a bit smaller than the old one, and the larger it is, the easier to read. I agree with Dick G that the composite is probably best for now. Although the three seperate maps are probably easier to follow, especially for the second voyage, the article is already a bit heavy on illustrations and light on prose. In the future, if the information on the specific voyages is expanded, it may be better to move to the seperate maps, but for now, I think the composite works a bit better. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone add this information? (Garunteed to double the size and quality of the article)

I've come across CaptainCookSociety.com and found the information there to be of high quantity and quality. See for yourself:

An extremely specific chronological timeline of everything that happened on James Cook's voyage. This includes the number of people the ship was supposed to hold, how many it departed with, specific dates for each sailor's death, specific dates for every island he visited, and more:

http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ccsu61.htm

Another chronological timeline, except holding some information that's not found in the previous link. This one specializes for the discovery of New Zealand:

http://www.captaincooksociety.com/ccsu68.htm

I have several complaints about this article, for example, neither the James Cook article or the First Voyage of James Cook says anything about him claiming New Zealand for Britain. Also, none of those articles say where he landed on New Zealand (Poverty Bay) or the person who coincidentially arrived at New Zealand at the same time he did (Jean François Marie ).

N64128256 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The Captain Cook Society is certainly a useful resource and one that is already linked from the main article page (see External Links). I would argue the quality of the James Cook article is not defined purely by the quantity of the information it contains. The article should be a comprehensive but not overwhelming encyclopedic treatment. Statistics of the kind referred to in your comment certainly have their place but really they are limited to where they add to the reader's understanding of James Cook. By all means add that kind of information to the article on his first voyage but again, it doesn't need an almanac-style list - better to link to the relevant Captain Cook Society page where they've already done the work extrapolating it from the primary source journals and only where it really adds to our understanding of that voyage. Additional details about his charting of New Zealand, landing points and the J. F. Marie coincidence can be incorporated into the relevant sub articles. There is nothing to stop you adding this yourself and indeed you are encouraged to do so, but please make sure you cite the relevant sources for any new content you add. This article has a number of faults and could do with a concerted effort by a number of editors but I don't think the absence of the content you describe is one of them, though please comment further if you disagree. Thanks for stopping by. Dick G (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Scurvy

Cook's first voyage was important in the history of naval health and preventative medicine. Almost 3/4 of Anson's crew died of nutritional deficiencies in their circumnavigation. Cook lost none or very few. An accessible recent popular book is Stephen R. Bown's Scurvy ISBN 014300264. His website: [Stephen R. Bown bookshelf]. Scurvy elements of this article should link to the James Lind and Gilbert Blane and scurvy articles. Thr scurvy and Lind articles currently link to Cook, but not the other way.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cook and Royal Marines

• On February 14, 1779 Captain James Cook took with him the following Marines: Lt.Phillips; a Sgt; Corporal Thomas and seven Privates; besides Cook, four Marines-Corporal Thomas and three Privates Hinks; Allen, and Fatchett-were killed and 2-Lt Phillips and Private Jackson-wounded. 134.53.145.110 (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Start of Royal Navy Career

Was his start not in 1755 (instead of 1766) on HMS Eagle (instead of HMS Solebay), as reported in Early Life? As a continental user, I would not dare to make the change myself. --AHert (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed.Dick G (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've had a quick look through the article and found it to be quite cluttered with images. Are all these pictures of plaques and statues necessary? Also, does it need three different images of Cook's death? BarretBonden (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here... pictures are great, but this is overdoing it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would be improved by trimming—soon as you like! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at trimming. Hopefully it's an improvement. BarretBonden (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationality error

James Cook was British. The Royal Navy at that time was the British Navy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.24.5 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Surely referring to James Cook as "an English Explorer" is ambiguous, ignorant and fairly erroneous as Cook was in fact British, representing his majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (which was a result of the union of England and Wales and Scotland in 1707 - England ceased to exist as an independent political entity in this year) and claimed Australia for Britain. Therefore to avoid confusion and to associate him with the present day United Kingdom, and to refer to his correct nationality he should be referred to as "a British Explorer" instead. W2ch00 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable argument - I've reworded it to British. Euryalus (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New file File:James Cook by John Webber.jpg

Recently the file File:James Cook by John Webber.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Log books now available on-line

{{editsemiprotected}}

The British Atmospheric Data Centre now has online images of Cook's log books -- I'd like to add this inof to the page, but don't have sufficient authorisation. Here is some suggested text, which could go in the interlude section:

Images of the log books from Cook's three voyages of dicovery are now available on-line at http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/corral/. There are the personal logs kept by James Cook, up to his last entry on January 6th, 1779, and additional logs kept by other crew members. --Mnjuckes (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done, because that info is not really suitable to put in the lede (that's the first bit) - see that link for info about why not.

It might be appropriate as an external link, but there are rather a lot of those already, in this article.

Mnjuckes, you have only made 4 edits so far; once you have made 10 edits, your account will be autoconfirmed, and you will be able to edit semi-protected pages yourself. I recommend the concept of bold, revert, discuss for things like this. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done

{{editsemiprotected}}

Fair point concerning the lede etc, but I would like to add to the external link list. There is a link to two digitised journals kept by James Cook at item 4 in the current list. I'd suggest changing this, as the journals we provide in our archive give considerable additional information -- e.g. accounts by his crew after his death. I would suggest adding the link to our more extensive collection after the link to the two journals held at the National Library of Australia because they have colour images of better quality than our black and white images. Here is my suggested replacement, which incorporates the existing item:

• The Endeavour journal (1) and The Endeavour journal (2), as kept by James Cook – digitised and held by the National Library of Australia; Journals kept by James Cook and his crew on The Endeavour and The Resolution -- digitised at The National Archives and held the British Atmospheric Data Centre. --Mnjuckes (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Promotions--Master and Commander

There was no such rank as Master and Commander at the time of Cook's promotion. Cook was promoted to Commander while retaining his master certification. It was common for RN ships of the era to have a master onboard who would be in charge of vessel operations, in addition to a commanding officer who would be responsible for mission execution. In Cook's case, he was a qualified master and didn't require a second master onboard, and thus could be called master and commander, but this is not a rank. The title "Commander" did derive from "Master and Commander," which was used in the seventeenth century to denote a mariner qualified to master and command one of the navy's smaller ships.

Reference: Villiers, Alan. Captain James Cook. Scribner, 1967. Library of Congress Number 67-21345, p170.

67.86.32.206 (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Brett

I've corrected it to just "Commander", and added a reference. Euryalus (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottle of Notes

'Bottle O' Notes' is in fact called "Bottle of Notes" and is by Claes Oldenburg AND Coosje van Bruggen. Does <a href="http://www.oldenburgvanbruggen.com/largescaleprojects/bottleofnotes.htm"> their website</a> count as reference enough? I also suggest rephrasing from 'public artwork' to 'public sculpture'. 41.232.59.34 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Skipping game mentioning Captain Cook

I was born in 1962 and grew up in Leicester, UK. A popular skipping game my friends and I used to play at infant school and junior school was 'Captain Cook'. A bit of googling has shown that it was/is also played in New Zealand [2] Pages 10 and 11) along with other variants. My version went:

• Captain Cook lost one arm. [Put one hand behind back.]
• Captain Cook lost the other arm. [Put other hand behind back.]
• Captain Cook lost one eye. [Shut one eye.]
• Captain Cook lost the other eye. [Shut other eye.]
• Captain Cook lost one leg. [Jump on one leg.]
• Captain Cook fell down dead. [Jump out of rope and fall to the ground.]

Is this worth mentioning anywhere (popular culture section) as it's an international phenomenon? 86.133.48.121 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, because "pop culture" sections tend to be a grab-bag of any assorted junk that casually mentions the title subject; IMO, this doesn't rise to the level of "international phenomenon". If the game involved a hula hoop (for instance) & Cook's name, it would be another matter. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Geography fix needed

Right now it reads "After leaving Nootka Sound, Cook explored and mapped the coast from California all the way to the Bering Strait" - that doesn't make sense. Did he go up to Bering and then down the California coast back to Hawaii, or did he hit California from Hawaii and go up the coast? Thanks. Makana Chai (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the maps I used had him essentially going north after the Nootka Sound area and then back to Hawaii after the Bering area; I think it is probably a case of odd phrasing, as in it makes it sound like California (broadly construed) came after Nootka Sound, when Nootka Sound was actually just part of the 'California to Bering Strait' trip and not the start of it. AlexiusHoratius 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be partially my fault, since I added some of the Nootka Sound info. Currently the article doesn't seem to say where Cook made landfall on the west coast of North America. It implies it was at Nootka Sound: " he went...to explore the west coast of North America, landing...in Nootka Sound on Vancouver Island..." But the very next sentence mentions his sailing past the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which he did on the way north to Nootka. What is needed, I think, is something mentioning where he first made landfall and sailed north from. I'll dig up the info and add it. Pfly (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll probably give the map a few tweaks while you're at it. There have been some Atlantic corrections I've been meaning to make, and it'd probably be worth it to have the map show the landing at Nootka Sound; as it is the route just sort of goes up the coast. AlexiusHoratius 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, new map has been uploaded, with Nootka Sound landing more obvious. AlexiusHoratius 22:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I took "California" out of the sentence "after Nootka Sound" - it "sounds" more right to me this way. Makana Chai (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch--my proofreading has gone down the drain since having kids! Aside--some of the sources I browsed indicated that Cook and his crew were a bit surprised at how different the natives of Nootka were from those of the Pacific Polynesians; as if Cook and crew had thought they had begun to get the hang of dealing with first encounters only to be shown how little they knew in Nootka. The Nootka natives made it known they were a superior people and refused to be much impressed by the new-comers. Perhaps due to the potlatch tradition, the giving of gifts could be complex and cause for feelings of one-upmanship. The natives were familiar with metals--copper and iron most of all--and knew how to cold-work it into weaponry. I got the sense that during Cook's month at Nootka he and his crew struggled to understand the local people and their ways. That Cook named Yuquot "Friendly Cove" still seems a bit odd to me. A great number of Cook's crew went on to pioneer the sea-otter trade, working with the natives of the North West coast--clearly making the best of the insights they gained with Cook (and the profits the sea otter pelts made in China), especially after the break out of peace in 1786 put many on half-pay. In part because Cook spent a month at Nootka, it became the sea-otter trade's main port of call. I'm tempting to add something more about this here, but will perhaps make a new article on the Sea otter trade. (end tangential comments). Pfly (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only read Cook's journal in Hawai'i and Tahiti. Does he say in his journal why he called it friendly? Maybe it's like when we named our cat Lovie - more hopeful that it would happen than a description of her actual personality! Sounds like a separate article on sea otter trade would be useful, or put it under sea otter. Makana Chai (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading up on Tonga, which Cook called the Friendly Isles. By all accounts they were friendly. Wonder how that relates. Makana Chai (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Table of Contents on Talk Page

It was driving me crazy that there was no TOC, so I added, but for some reason the first four entries are "needed for FA." If someone could fix that it would be much appreciated. Looks like this talk page is long enough for at least some of it to be archived. Thanks! Makana Chai (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 138.25.84.155, 13 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In "Third voyage (1776–79) and death", para 2, last sentence. Please fix/change spelling of "vessles" to "vessels" 138.25.84.155 (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

New full-width infobox

The new "arms" infobox seems to contain a lot of white space; is it too big, indeed overwhelming, for it's purpose or can an article of this length sustain it without suffering an undue loss of balance (both figuratively and in the balance of the layout)? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, User:Justin A Kuntz--Old Moonraker (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But it's back again, so my question remains. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all apologies for the rollback, slipped when I was hitting undo. Secondly, the CoA appears to be user generated from the description of the CoA and not the CoA itself. As such it is WP:OR and not suitable. Justin talk 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The shield is the same here, so there is at least some backing evidence. Can we re-add? It adds an interesting element to the article. Furthermore, I'll have to disagree your point about it being original research. Tere looks to a ref for the description, and the image was just drawn according to the description,

which was cited. (Connormah forgetting to log in) 96.52.53.138 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I added the arms a few days ago. I recreated the image from the blazon as is standard practice. I found the blazon in "Historic Heraldry of Britain", A. R. Wagner, 1972. (As was cited when I made the change.) There is also a reference to it in "The Captain Cook Encyclopaedia", Robson, John, London: Chatham, 2004. While I agree that the arms are hugely unattractive, they are entirely legitimate and documented in both of these sources. I would certainly appreciate it if they could be put back at the end of the article. As for the excessive white space in the COA box, I haven't had much luck locating any further details (which would fill out the box a bit better). I'll attempt to do so soon. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, A1 Aardvark, for this constructive response. My point, however, is not that the arms are "hugely unattractive", but that the box is. Filling the wasted space inside might make a difference, but not much. Is there any way the material could be presented in a more compact fashion? --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In actual fact, you haven't recreated the image, you've put together a montage of images to approximate the Coat of Arms. Whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm its hardly encyclopedic. Justin talk 07:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hah? Any "montage of images" that fits the official description is a valid representation of the coat of arms. Heraldic design assumes that the details of representation won't be absolutely consistent from one instance to another; that's why, for example, only a few colors are (commonly) distinguished. —Tamfang (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Old Moonraker, I don't mind if the arms are just put in a smaller box on their own with a little caption underneath, but this is a pretty standard format. I do think they warrant inclusion in some manner however. With regard to the view that I have not recreated the arms, but have amalgamated other items, that is not really relevant to the matter. Virtually all the thousands of coats of arms on wikipedia have been constructed from common stock images. Regardless, the creation of the image of a coat of arms is governed entirely by the artists' interpretation of the blazon text. As long as this is done accurately (which this is) all artistic concerns are irrelevant. Finally, I'm not sure how one would define "encyclopaedic". This is entirely accurate work, adds to the knowledge on the subject, and is referenced appropriately. I'll try adding it in a smaller box and see if that helps. Cheers A1 Aardvark (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried adding it in a small image box with a caption. I don't think it works, but if that's closer to what people want that is fine with me. (I'm just passing through afterall.) The text of the blazon is quite important and this format doesn't allow for that. The COA box is the standard form. See, for example, Anne, Princess Royal (and most of the royal family) or Hilary Weston. I think its important that as Cook was granted this honour by the crown there should be some reference to it.A1 Aardvark (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs) 10:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I had in mind, more "encyclopaedic", in fact. In this context I would say that "encyclopaedic" means, apart from providing the essential reliable sources, a close adherence to WP:TOPIC and not giving WP:UNDUE attention to matters, such as the full, arcane description in the language of heraldry of his achievement of arms, which aren't directly relevant. This seems to me to get the balance about right. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I really appreciate your constructive comments. I'm happy with it this way if its the preferred position. Many thanks for your help! A1 Aardvark (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just nudged it up a few sentences so it fits on the page better. Cheers! A1 Aardvark (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominated the image for deletion as it is unencyclopedic, feel free to comment on the deletion discussion. I'm sorry but this is not a suitable input, its a lash up of disparate images to approximate a coat of arms. As such it is of no encyclopedic value. Justin talk 11:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? How is deletion the way to go with this? The image is at commons, a free media repository, not an encyclopedia, so 'not encyclopedic" would not be a valid reason for deletion on Commons, IMO. It's not like adding the Coat of Arms image to the article is degrading the quality, it justs adds a little something extra, which some people may find interesting. I really don't see a problem in it. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well yes and no. For a start I genuinely don't see it as improving the article and there isn't a nice way to say this, much as I appreciate the effort that went into producing it, but its his personal interpretation of what it looks like not the proper coat of arms. And commons is a free repository but that doesn't mean we retain images that are not what they purport to be. Despite objections based upon WP:MOS and pointing out it violates policies like WP:OR and WP:SYN it still keeps getting added. Looking pretty is not a valid criteria for retention. Justin talk 19:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the link I posted above? The shield is spot-on, the only different thing is the color, which fits the description. Commons is not an encyclopedia. There are many images that are unused, and potentially of encyclopedia value, yet they remain. It is a free image, and I don't see any valid reason to delete it in the deletion criteria on Commons, so it should remain. Again, I will disagree with you on the fact that it is original research. The shield was drawn based on specifications from a cited source, and it seems to match this drawing, which, I'm assuming was drawn at the time. I think it adds something interesting to the article, and personally, see no harm in adding it. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Added to OR noticeboard here. No I don't see it as adding something interesting and again WP:OR is specifically excluded by policy. Interpretation of primary sources is exactly what OR is about, its not acceptable for that reason. Justin talk 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you even bother to look at the link I posted above? This is not new interpretation of the shield. Connormah (talk | contribs) 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: the illustration that you cite has estoiles (wavy rays) where Aardvark's has mullets (straight rays). I'm not sure that this is significant. —Tamfang (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoth Wikipedia:No original research#Original images, "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." The image in question is based directly on published information, so it does not constitute original research. —David Levy 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, its not an original image its an attempt to copy a coat of arms by cobbling together several disparate images. It adds nothing to the article. Justin talk 07:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In this context, "original" does not mean "created from scratch"; it means "not provided by an outside source in substantially the same visual form." This is a state necessitating that the aforementioned conditions be met, not a criterion of merit.

There is absolutely nothing improper or unusual about utilizing free graphic files to compile a composite image fitting a particular description.

Instead of pursuing technicalities, please explain how this image materially differs from other historical coats of arms displayed throughout Wikipedia (and why you believe that the information conveyed "adds nothing to the article"). —David Levy 09:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Because a) it doesn't actually resemble what it is supposed to be and b) there is a free image available but its black and white. What does it add to article? Well looking vaguely like what the real thing looks like is not enough. Since when was accuracy sacrificed as a criteria for inclusion of images? Justin talk 11:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

About the time 'criteria' became singular, speaking of accuracy. —Tamfang (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Doesn't resemble what it's supposed to be": Here's a nice, colour image (unfortunately not free) from which editors may draw their own conclusions. Mine would be to agree with the assessment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You won't find many living experts praising that postcard. (The blue is "supposed" to be dark and the gold bright, not the reverse; compare. The stars look like wet leaves.) Style aside, that too is merely some unknown hack's re-creation of the arms, probably working in much the same way as Aardvark did. —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So Justin, are you complaining because the image is too original or because it is too unoriginal? —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow this has become complicated! I will make another attempt to clarify my position.

1) My image is an illustration of the arms (shield) of James Cook. I have not depicted the full achievement which includes the crest at the top or the cannons on the side and compartment at the bottom. There are thousands of arms all over wikipedia which show only the arms and nothing else. This is a perfectly acceptable practice in heraldic illustration.

2) There seems to be some confusion about whether these arms resemble some other artist's illustration. The arms I produced are drawn entirely from the blazon (as all visual representations of coats of arms are). The blazon is:

Azure, between two Polar Stars Or, a Sphere on the plane of the Meridian, North Pole elevated, Circles of Latitude for every ten degrees and of Longitude for fifteen, shewing the Pacific Ocean between sixty and two hundred and forty West, bounded on one side by America, on the other by Asia and New Holland; in memory of his having explored and made Discoveries in that Ocean so very far beyond all former Navigators: His Track thereon marked with red Lines.

My illustration should be judged for its representation of these words and not its similarity to any other artist's depiction. I have not attempted to make a "knock-off" of someone else's work; we have both created representations of the same words. My illustration is no less "real" than the dozens of other artists who have rendered it on paper over the centuries. Heraldry is not about copying some official picture, but about representing official words.

3) There are thousands of historical coats of arms rendered and posted throughout wikipedia. No explanation has yet been offered as to why those rendering are considered more accurate than mine. They too are constructed from image parts collected across wikipedia and are no more "official" or "real" than mine.

4) These arms (whether represented as words or an illustration) add to this article. We display Cook's signature on this page because it is an interesting detail which represented him and his family. The arms serve this same purpose. Furthermore, they were a gift from the crown in recognition of his life and work. They are an honour and are just as appropriate to mention in this article as if he had been knighted or held a title.

Whew, thanks.A1 Aardvark (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

1912 postcard would be probably be free depending on where it is published. Also this image [3] would be free. As Tamfang noted above there are several fundamental errors in what has been created. Justin talk 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not true. Tamfang pointed out a single minor detail, a "quibble", which I have discussed with him. I am prepared to modify the stars if there is a consensus to do so based on heraldic principles. (This would be a quick and simple procedure.) You still have not addressed the issues I've raised. Furthermore, a vector image in colour is surely superior to a tiny b&w one from a century ago, given that both are equally valid representations. A1 Aardvark (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And your globe also shows Antarctica, not discovered in Cook's time. Personally I prefer the B&W version as it is accurate for the period. Justin talk 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I noted on the Commons deletion request page, the image is not perfect and could be improved. This is not remotely the same as "original research" with "no encyclopedic value." —David Levy 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's quick and simple to replace the stars, then definitely do so. On another hand, keep Antarctica. If we could go back in time and ask the King (at a time when the usual depiction of heraldic lions was considerably more realistic than when the Royal Arms were first adopted!) whether you should go out of your way to remove known lands from subsequent depictions of the globe, in order to keep it consistent with the limits of geography in Cook's time, I'd bet he'd say no. Besides, if you remove Antarctica you'll have to put ocean in its place; that would make it a knowingly false representation, arguably contrary to the letter of the blazon. —Tamfang (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Flickr could possibly qualify for {{PD-Old}}, (from 1912), but I'm not quite too sure on that. Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is fine, though the stars arms need to be made wavy. However, the image only shows the shield, while there is a black and white image that shows the full coat of arms. So, would it be better to show a coloured version that has only half the complete achievement, or show the full device but without the proper colours? Might be simpler to colour the black and white image in. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a request to one of our top heraldry artists (User:Sodacan) for full SVG version, but, for the time being, I don't see why we can't include the current version, with the mentioned change pointed out above. Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've modified the stars as requested and uploaded the image. Perhaps I've done something wrong in the upload process. The image history shows the new stars, but the current version seems to still be displaying the old version. Any assistance would be appreciated. A1 Aardvark (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes sticky like that when you upload over images. Clearing your cache should do the trick. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Connormah. I'll give it some more time, I still can't get it to display properly for me. Is the version you're seeing the wavy star one? Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It just takes a little time, the same happens for my images I upload over. No biggie, it should be fine soon. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally my preference would be to use the BW image as an accurate period depiction and one which seems more appropriate. I also don't get the comments about including Antartica, which hadn't been discovered at the time? It seem inapproprirate to my mind and I note it isn't included on the BW depiction. Could you explain to me why it is inappropriate to accurately depict the coat of arms as awarded? Justin talk 09:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A full coat of arms would be preferable, however the black and white needs some clean up. Also, the black and white is not period, and is certainly not a grant of arms. It has the appearance of a 20th century painting. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a B&W version of the Coat of Arms which is more accurate and doesn't add continents that weren't discovered in Cook's time. Its the full coat of arms as requested. I also turned up an interesting titbit of information in that apparently this was the last Coat of Arms awarded by the British monarchy. Justin talk 16:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the text accompanying the plate it was apparently prepared for Cook's son whilst in RN service, so it seems apt. Justin talk 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Connormah, Tamfang, David Levy, XANDERLIPTAK,and Sodacan have all expressed some measure of support for the image I created and its inclusion in this article. While I admire the consistency of Justin's position, his reasons for seeking its removal have changed frequently throughout this discussion. Each time, they have been disagreed with by other editors. As far as I can tell, his position continues to be that the arms don't "actually resemble what it is supposed to be". This has been firmly refuted by myself and several other editors. Justin has declined to explain how these arms fail to represent the blazon, which is, ultimately, the only issue that matters. He has stated that "your globe also shows Antarctica, not discovered in Cook's time". This (most recent) complaint does not answer the question. The blazon is very clear. It requires a map of the world showing the Pacific ocean. It does not specify "a map of the Pacific ocean as understood in 1799". If it said that, there could be no argument for the inclusion of Antarctica. However, as Tamfang pointed out, to falsify a map would be contrary to the blazon as it is written. It presupposes that those who drafted the blazon expected no further discoveries would be made in the Pacific. There is no reason to assume that they believed their understanding of the world would remain static. In fact, given the nature of exploration at the time, it is almost certain that they did not believe this. For all we know they left the description of the Pacific vague to allow for future discoveries. Furthermore, to deliberately use a false map would be offensive to the memory of a man who dedicated his life to mapping the Pacific. Finally, the black and white image of the arms posted in a previous edit of the article (with virtually no support from any other editors) is itself actually a poor representation of the arms insofar as it does not represent the colours as described. Tincture is a rather important element in heraldry! I do not see why a perfectly acceptable, free, colour, vector image is in some way less desirable than a black and white sketch which is of "rather poor quality" and in need of some "cleaning up", as XANDERLIPTAK pointed out. On top of this, it cannot even be confirmed whether this image is free outside the U.S. A1 Aardvark (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is copyright free as far as wikipedia is concerned so that is a red herring not germane to the issue at hand. The image I added was taken from an original plate prepared for Cook's son and so seems more appropriate. It isn't the image that someone suggested needed cleaning up for your information, so please don't seize upon unrelated comments.

And this is an encyclopedia, we include material guided by WP:MOS for example and not on personal opinion on "what Cook would have thought", other emotive terms or outright plain speculation. You may also care to note that the issue of whether to include Antartica also drew comments in support on the OR noticeboard.

I said I appreciated you were making a genuine effort but to be blunt, it looks amateurish and utterly detracts from the quality of the article and bears little resemblance to what it is supposed to be. Its also inaccurate and we now have a free alternative; one directly linked to Cook's immediate descendants. I also turned up some interesting information about the Coat of Arms and I brought them here for discussion about inclusion. Sadly you seem more concerned about using your own image in preference and noting your comments above clearly did not read my post in talk before reverting. I have restored the version prepared for Cook's son. Justin talk 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, tincture is important, which is why the plate is tricked. The horizontal lines denote a blue shiled, and the bare estoiles mean metal. So since tincture is displayed in the black and white image in the article, that argument is not worth furthering. The other hand is a good point to note, that this is a more historical version and is complete, two points very valuable to an encyclopaedia. Now, if you both still can not agree with the image, how about I make a colour version to use then? Hopefully that will remove both parties from the argument and be a common middle ground to move on from. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry missed your comment and only noticed it when I came back to pose a question. The version I've added is from a plate prepared for Cook's son and so has a family connection. For that reason I'd prefer to retain it, it appears to have consensus.

The question I intended to ask was whether the comment that this was the last coat of arms granted by a British monarch was correct and accurate, thereby worthy of inclusion. It was a throwaway comment in an older publication. Justin talk 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Banks an aristocrat ?

He was certainly a member of the Lincolnshire gentry and owned a fine estate at Revesby, but surely should not be called an aristocrat ? Semutfu (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean, in the sense that he was not nobility, then he may not fit a strict definition, but the general usage of the word would certainly include well connected landed gentry of means. Jbower47 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why English explorer and not British?

Hi, the first sentence says English explorer, Captain Cook was born after Union of 1707, and therefore is British and not by-law English. The page contradicts it's self - it says in the Info-box - 'Nationality: Great Britain' - when in the first sentence he is referred to as on the English. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with George2001hi on this. Been watching the slow edit war on the matter and cannot see the logic of calling Cook English. I'd really be interested in a sound explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of good faith would go a long way. It is unfortunate that, unfortunate in that I agree with you both, the convention on wikipedia is to refer to English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish rather than British for individuals as various nationals object to the use of the term "British". Likewise the convention is to use British for events related to the British Empire eg the Capture of Gibraltar. Like I say I don't disagree with you but bitter experience tells me different. Regards, Justin talk 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My take is a little different. Certain individuals don't like being referred to as British, preferring whichever home country they're from. But certain other individuals insist on being called British. And some don't mind or care either way. That's why we have Category:British novelists, Category:English novelists, Category:Welsh novelists, Category:Irish novelists, and Category:Scottish novelists, and similar divisions. As for Cook, I doubt we have any records that show him referring to himself as "English" vs. "British", so we don't know what he personally preferred. But as far as the outside world is concerned, he is notable for his voyages and discoveries on behalf of the British Navy and the British Crown, so it makes no sense to limit him to his Englishness. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Justin, are you still retired or are you back now? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I neither disagree nor GAF either way. Anyone wish to take a wager on how long it takes for someone to dispute it? I'm retired because I'm fed up with precisely this sort of WP:LAME. Justin talk 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justin and JackofOz. It's an interesting issue. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be catering for the personal sensitivities of individuals. Rather, it should be reflecting what we find in reliable sources. On that note, I just checked the reference attached to the lead paragraph. It's to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. It says English. But why we're using the 1911 edition is beyond me. I just checked the current online Britannica (at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135983/James-Cook), and it say British. The majority of sources seem to say British. I've also found out that his father was Scottish and he emigrated to Yorkshire. I doubt if he would have wanted to be known as English. Justin, when you refer to "the convention on Wikipedia...", is that documented somewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW there is no such thing as the British Navy, we do have a Royal Navy though. We use the 1911 edition of EB because it is public domain. As I said to George nationalism is a recipe for a world of pain. The convention I referred to is documented somewhere, it came out of an arbcom decision. I would have to hunt for it. Justin talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It can't be entirely up to what reliable sources say about these people, HiLo. For example, take two novelists who've lived all their lives in London and write exclusively in English. One's referred to as an "English novelist", the other as a "British novelist". What would cause third parties to discriminate in that way in their labelling? There's nothing rational about it. It all comes down to self-identification, and that, by definition, is a matter for the subjects alone to decide. The only role that reliable sources play is correctly reporting what the subjects themselves choose to be referred to as. But it's terribly vexed when it comes to people we can't ask anymore or who made no known pronouncements on the matter. Was Edward Elgar a British composer or an English composer? Was Laurence Olivier a British actor or an English actor? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problems. I like that sentence: "There's nothing rational about it." Seems accurate, sadly. I grew up among a lot of immigrants to Australia, many from Yorkshire. They tended not to say they were English nor British, but Yorkshiremen.

I wonder if we could resolve this particular issue by rephrasing with words like: "Captain James Cook...was born in Yorkshire, England in the United Kingdom. He became an explorer, navigator and cartographer...in the Royal Navy." HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

British is rarely applied to Welsh, Scottish and Irish in these matters so i can't see any reason why the English are different. It would not be consistent to have the Welsh, Scottish and Irish as such and the English as British.--English Bobby (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rarely? I wonder. Staying with my novelists theme, we currently have 418 British novelists, compared to 1048 English, 155 Welsh, and 83 Scottish. Are you saying almost all of the 418 British novelists are English? There are also 202 Irish novelists; while some of them are from the Republic, some are definitely from NI and are thus British by citizenship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is most common for English people to be referred to as British but not the Celtic peoples. Of those 418 British novelists i wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of them were Englishmen (or women).--English Bobby (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just did a Google search on two alternatives. Firstly "James Cook" and English. That scored "About 459,000 results". Secondly I tried "James Cook" and British. "About 367,000 results" for that one. What that seems to prove is that one would be mistaken to insist that one description is completely wrong and the other the only correct one. Both seem very common. That English won the poll (albeit inconclusively) might be the only real external factor we have to decide this question. There's certainly no certainty to it!HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look up English Defence League as our resident sympathiser has appeared, I win £5. Justin talk 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of you accusing me of being a EDL agent justin. Just because your having another month long sulk doesn't mean you have to follow me around.--English Bobby (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve done a Google search on a couple of phrases - British James Cook - About 5,620,000 results English James Cook - About 2,480,000 results As you can see the British one has a lot more results, and therefore James Cook is more commonly know for being British rather than English. This just sums it up, more up-to-date sources- like his Britannica Encyclopaedia article. We can’t ask him if he prefers to be called English or British, so we have to make a decision. He was born after the Union of 1707 and therefore British. I’m changing it. Thanks User:George2001hi (talk)

Its not actually that reliable. If you look at some of the Links under "British James Cook" they say "an English explorer". He would have most likely refered to himself as an Englishman in those day's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by English Bobby (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cook may have been born in England but he would have been a British Subject whether he (or anyone else) likes it or not. This applies equally today, there being no internationally-recognised citizenship as 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh', 'Northern Irish', etc., nor can you get a legally-recognised passport for them, despite the wishes of a few independence-minded nationalists. A person may call themselves 'English' 'Northern Irish', 'Scottish', 'Welsh', etc., but as far as Nationality is concerned, they are all British, and would have been since 1707. This also applies to citizens of Commonwealth countries prior to them getting their own citizenship, hence Errol Flynn, Edgar Percival, ('Australians') would also have been 'British', which is what they regarded themselves at the time. The British Empire is the entity responsible for this somewhat confusing, (to foreigners at least), state of affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.168 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Hilo48 said - "Captain James Cook...was born in Yorkshire, England in the United Kingdom. He became an explorer, navigator and cartographer...in the Royal Navy." This is from a neutral point, it gives a sense of his nationality and "ethnicity". It may not coincide with other British explorers such as Lord Nelson, but fits neutrality to-a-tee. This needs sorting to display his nationality within the first sentence, or to fit others' 'opinions' and display ethnicity aswell.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I have no problem with that. Justin talk 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, done - it'll last maybe 5-15 minutes (no need to say who).
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I support that 100%. Regards. Justin talk 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol i love how you put 'other opinions' George when it was you who changed it in the first place because of your own political opinions. I believe it just said English before. The way i'm supporting clearly states his nationality in the info box for all those so concerned, so there is no need to ram it home else where as well .--English Bobby (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the current revision, maybe it needs a little tweaking - but it's fine - neutral. My political opinions may have made me create this discussion, but I'm not the one insisting on a edit war. Maybe you would like deleting everything and replace it with "HE WAS ENGLISH" filling the screen.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it either. See WP:3RR btw Justin talk 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you should read it as well.--English Bobby (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean for it to say 'opinions' it was meant to be in italics (to mean important).
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The current revision is ridiculous. It states exactly the same info as is stated in the info box, all because YOU have an immense hostility to the English.

Also don't try to put it across as i'm the only one trying to edit war, it was another user that changed the word back to English and Justin who kept trying to revert it. But like i said the current revision is nonsense and needs changing. The way i had is perfectly reasonable. Saying he is an Englishman yet clearly showing his nationality in the info box.--English Bobby (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My view has nothing to do with any hostility to the English. If anything, someone with the word English in his username here is the one more obviously likely to have a POV on the matter. Clearly such a person IS biased towards the word, just as I am to my name. (But the reasons for mine will be less obvious to you all.) Let's keep it simple. England is not a country. The United Kingdom is by far the most common name for the country Cook is from. British is by far the most common adjective for someone from that country (apart from the Northern Irish.) So United Kingdom and British should respectively be the noun and adjective used in the Infobox and lead. Some more detail about where he was from is appropriate, in fact required, inside the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol my name doesn't actually have anything to do with my nationalistic sympathies, its simply my nickname (its supposed to be English Bob as in the character from Unforgiven but someone already had that) and i can't see how having a word in your name makes you biased.

To the issue though, the article is now ridiculous. Before it clearly stated his Nationality in the info box whilst referring to his ethnicity in the opener, now it states his place of birth twice at the top of the page all because two users don't like Englishness. The article has called him an Englishman for god knows how many years now with no problem. The problem with this is always with English bio's being singled by people who don't like the word English (their nearly always English themselves) and changed yet the same isn't done to the other ethnicities of the UK. For example Alexander Mackenzie (Explorer) among many more. For some reason Wikipedia seems to think being British must mean you're English and that their exactly the same thing. Being a quarter Welsh a quarter Scottish and half English (not half British) makes me appreciate the difference for my part.--English Bobby (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who thinks that British means English. The latter is a subset of the former, which represents the country, and hence nationality. There's no way I would support Scottish or Welsh as nationalities either. Neither Scotland nor Wales are countries. And I can't see where ethnicity comes into this at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm from England, but I'm half Scottish - I prefer to be called British, because of my background. Cook's father was Scottish, he would have rather been know as British, plus he's ethnicity isn't English anyway - he's half Scottish half English. Surely because he served for his country on the seas - he should be known as being British. Maybe the text that says 'born in Yorkshire...' should be swapped with his career - 'explorer, navigator and cartographer...' - maybe merging it into one sentence. Maybe the England link - can be piped to English People and Kingdom of Great Britain piped to British People. Fair - that's meeting your opinions half way.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

English Bobby does nothing substantive on wikipedia except change British to English and when he doesn't get his own way he edit wars or resorts to personal abuse. I thought it only fair to bring this to your attention. This is why I don't try and engage him in talk anymore, good luck. Justin talk 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And Justin doesn't do anything other than revert people's edits often with a rude reply in the edit summary. Nothing else. Also if we're bringing up these things Justin is currently on a 3 month ban from editing Gibraltar articles because of his appalling abuse to other users who showed nothing but polite tolerance of him.--English Bobby (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin is completely right; pretty much all of your contributions for quite some time seem to be hijacking biographical articles to change "British" to "English". Most people outside Britain/England/whatever you think it should be called wouldn't even realise there is a difference in the first place, so it's really quite pathetic to see you getting so worked up about your vigilante crusade.(Huey45 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Another one who's attitude has almost landed them in hot water. Someone who often thinks they own articles and can only attack other peoples work by accusing them of vandalism, that getting then into trouble. It would all be funny if it weren't so pathetic.--English Bobby (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The irony of grown men spending their time having virtual slapfights over how to describe another grown man who spent his time having fantastic adventures should not be lost on us....let's maintain a sense of perspective. He was in the Royal Navy, it is a British institution. Therefore he was a British explorer. Now if the man is English by origin, it is arguably fine to describe him as either English or British when referring to his personal life. But in reference to actions performed in the line of duty and his general reputation as an explorer for the Royal Navy, he is and remains British. Let's separate our petty squabbles about the current sociopolitical implications of calling something British/English, and concentrate on a NPOV description based on what he was, at the time.Jbower47 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us not start a row again - the decision was that Cook would be referred to as a Anglo-Scot, his mother was English and father was Scottish. I believe the current lead sentence is fine.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Scot isn't a nationality so don't even bring it into the equation almost every admiral, explorer, and so forth that are born in England are listed as English to change it to Anglo-Scottish because his father was Scottish is ridiculous, I bet you no one wouldn't dare change Sean Connery and Billy Connelly to Scots-Irish, in fact why aren't they listed British, why isn't David Stirling listed as British he served in the British armed forces, he had English ancestry, Why isn't Andy Murray listed as British he plays for great Britain in tennis and has English ancestry on his mothers side, but it's okay if English people are listed as British so every other country in the union gets to share our achievements. As said below it's more accurate to Call him English as he is at the end of the day.Davido488 (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how good you think your logic is, a discussion does not consist simply of posts from you. Changing the article at that point, as you have just done, is completely unacceptable. I actually care about Wikipedia rules, so I won't revert again. I ask that you revert your own revert, and await proper discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an opinion on my logics, I was expressing my view on why he should be listed as English, you should know that David Stirling, Sean Connery, Andy murray and many other notable people are all listed Scottish when their ancestries can take them to places such as England and Ireland, why aren't they listed as British or by their ethnicity, so please don't persist to beat around the bush and accuse me of anti-civil behavior whilst overlooking the fact that I'm giving reasonable arguments of why Cook should be listed as English.Davido488 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

May I simply state, I do not wish to continue this; I started this discussion, when I was unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines, I didn't even sign my comment - enough said. I hereby retract my opinions and thoughts from this discussion. And HiLo48 - thank you for supporting me with the original edit, but the Newbies and Trolls will always have the upper-hand, they are simply too numerous, and pushing one away brings another back. We/I are somewhat of a dieing bred - a British patriot, the left-wing and sporting events have took their toll on education, and Wikipedia must distort with it. I edited this page without the knowledge that it was deadbeat, never any edits apart from edit wars. I don’t agree with the what has been said on this page, but I’ve realised that I must be the bigger-man and step out of this childish ignorant hypocritical discussion.
God Save the Queen
--George2001hi (Discussion) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You express succinctly why I spend less and less time on wikipedia. Narrow minded nationalism and the trolls/newbies that promote it. Expect no support from admins or elsewhere, the national sport on wikipedia is finding reasons to do nothing about disruptive editors. You're also a dying breed in being someone who cares about writing a quality article, so much more important to promote nationalism or other petty nonsense. Justin talk 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish, If you have even bothered to read one of my previous messages on this talk page I said for the time being let us put the Link to British people but you arrogantly continue reverting it back to Anglo-scots which clearly shows your force feeding your personal views upon this article for readers to come across. I'm trying to be reasonable by meeting you half way but you want to be greedy well I'm afraid it won't happen I'm directing British from Anglo-Scots to British people.Davido488 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with linking "British" to "British people", seems to make sense. --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Cook/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

;Needed to make FA This articles needs more complete references to make FA. It also needs the external links sorted out, some of them probably could be included in general references.--Grahamec 13:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Is the above assessment still the case? If so, I would like to get on it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)