User talk:CaptainCookFan

Welcome!

Hi CaptainCookFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Ask questions at the Teahouse or my talk. On talk pages, remember to sign your messages by typing a space then four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. That automatically inserts your user name and the date. Happy editing! Johnuniq (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point Hicks

Hello CaptainCookFan

I undid your revisions to Point Hicks because I don't think they are supported by the cited source. You wrote: “It is now generally accepted that Cook's "Point of land" was not today's Point Hicks, but that deceived by cloudbanks he named a point out at sea[10] and that the first sighting of the real coast was somewhat to the east and described by Joseph Banks at 10 a.m.” However, I don't think this is generally accepted. The cited article states: "“A century after Scott, it is difficult to find an accurate version of events at 8 a.m. on 19 April 1770. Examples of Cook biographers since Scott (and besides Beaglehole) who have fallen into Scott’s error are Alan Villiers (2001), Vanessa Collingridge (2003), Frank McLynn (2012) and Rob Mundle (2013).20 Examples of other historians and authors in error on the matter are Manning Clark (1962), Andrew Sharp (1963) and Thomas Keneally (2009).21 An internet search reveals that Scott’s is still the dominant view.” So the cloudbank theory might be true, but is not the generally accepted view. The cited article also states: “Cook’s chart shows the coast in the vicinity of today’s Point Hicks reasonably accurately, but his Point Hicks is shown not on the coast where Scott says it is, but more than 20 miles south-west of it.” I think the current wikipedia article accurately reflects this. Give the article is about modern day Point Hicks, rather than the controversy about why Cook got the coordinates wrong, it is sufficient to say that modern Point Hicks is probably not the "Point of land" charted by Cook. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aemilius Adolphin for critiquing my recent changes to the Point Hicks, and the comprehensive explanation as to why you undid these changes. I notice that you later put back my change of “It has been variously suggested that Cook was deceived” for “Most writers believe that Cook was deceived” I made my changes following your editing of the History and Naming sections that you conducted “in order to remove a lot of repetitive material”, which I appreciated. I shall be making some more changes to improve wording and citations, and look forward to your comments, should they be necessary. CaptainCookFan (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Cook

It's noted he commanded a ship, your reversion of an edit, without also un-fudging the other 4 HMS references seems silly, plus the two book references will be hard to change as they're in print.
Also, the ships wiki page well notes the differences and reasons and just stop already. Dave Rave (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]