Talk:James Cook/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Suggestion

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

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

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

Better words for link to Battle of the Plains of Abraham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerguelen island

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

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

Additional material re Cook's reputation in the centuries between his death and the modern era

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

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

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

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

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

Linking

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

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

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

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

Scurvy

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

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

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

See footnote [ad]:

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

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

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

A bit of terminology

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

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

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

Some changes related to indigenous issues

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

Links to Tahitians were changed to links to Maohi.

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

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

to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Promoted to Feature Article status

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deified Cook?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination to appear on Wikipedia front page

I've nominated this article to appear on the Wikipedia front page on 14 Feb 2026, the anniversary of Cook's death. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests/James_Cook. The nomination includes a "blurb" which is a one paragraph summary of the whole article. If anyone wants to improve the blurb, feel free. However, the volunteers that manage the front page have a huge workload, so it is sorta rude to make them do any extra work, therefore make sure any edits to the blurb are immaculate: no grammar or prose errors; 100% accurate; no ambiguous links, and the total number of characters must be between 925 and 1,025 characters (including spaces and the (including the final "Full article" words at the end). If you want to give the suggested improvement to me, that is okay, and I'll implement it. Noleander (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"He completed the first recorded circumnavigation of the main islands of New Zealand" is implicitly euro-centric, even if you say "recorded", as that implies a European standard of what it means to record something. See for example Kupe. I would specify "by a European", as you do in the next sentence. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Noleander (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Better is: "He completed the first known circumnavigation of the main islands New Zealand." The wording, "He completed the first circumnavigation of the main islands of New Zealand by a European" implies that some non-European did it beforehand. The oral legends of Kupe do not state that he circumnavigated the two main islands of new Zealand, if fact they state that he did not. Unless there is some recorded and widely accepted story of a non-European circumnavigating New Zealand it is more accurate to say that Cook was the first known person to do so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. If anyone wants to make any more changes to the "new Zealand" sentence, perhaps we should get consensus first here in this Talk page, to avoid thrashing that sentence. Noleander (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Kupe is legendary and even in the legends he is not said to have circumnavigated New Zealand. Stating that Cook completed the 'first recorded circumnavigation of the main islands of New Zealand' is entirely correct. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

First paragraph misleading

Anyone else feel that the last sentence of the first paragraph gives the impression that Australia and Hawaii were visited on the same expedition? Also, the significance of Cook's Hawaii encounter was that he ended their isolation, not merely that he was the first "European" to "visit". Jp2207 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That first paragr sentence now reads He ... led the first recorded visit by Europeans to the east coast of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands. A few months ago it read He ... was the first recorded European to visit the east coast of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands. The latter phrasing probably solves the "one visit or two?" ambiguity. I seem to recall the wording was changed to the current wording because he may not have been the first person on his crew to see (or step foot on) Austr & Hawaii. Maybe someone can come up with a sentence that resolves both those concerns?

As for "the significance of Cook's Hawaii encounter was that he ended their isolation, not merely that he was the first "European" to "visit"." Can you (@Jp2207) supply some sources that use wording like "the significance of Cook's Hawaii encounter was that he ended their isolation"? I recall lots of sources that use wording like "first to see/visit/land"; but I don't recall any "ended the isolation". Not saying no source say it, just that I don't have any at my fingertips. Additional sources - and the way they phrase it - should help determine the best wording. Noleander (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Certainly! Here are three:

Jarves, "History of the Hawaiian Islands", p 61: “the islands which [Cook] made known to the world”

Kuykendall, "The Hawaiian Kingdom Volume 1" p 12 “[Cook] brought Hawaii once more into contact with the outside world”

John A. Hussey, "Hawaii History 1778-1910" “There is no doubt that [Cook's] discovery was momentous for the Hawaiian Islands. Hitherto, during centuries of nearly complete isolation…”

Cheers. Jp2207 (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Why don't you propose a specific replacement for that sentence ("He ... led the first recorded visit by Europeans to the east coast of Australia and the Hawaiian Islands") and post it here and we can see what other editors think. Noleander (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe just change "visit" to "visits"? Gawaon (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thought about that but perhaps this implies more than one visit to Australia? I'm thinking the last sentence is trying to be too concise. Cook's achievements encountering Australia and Hawaii were distinct events, separated by 8 years. As per @Noleander's suggestion, I'll try to come up with a better sentence to cover both issues and post here. Jp2207 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

After thought and after reviewing a few other sources, it seems that outside of Hawaii histories, Cook’s Hawaii impact is not given huge significance. Even the WP article on the third voyage sticks to a narrative and with no mention of the end of Hawaiian isolation. So in fact there is an argument for removing mention of Hawaii from the first paragraph here!

I propose instead to amend the ‘Legacy’ section here and prefix the paragraph beginning "European visitors to Hawaii ..." with something like:

"Cook’s encounter with the Hawaiian Islands ended their centuries-long and nearly complete isolation. Within a few years of his arrival in the islands, foreign visitors and their influence increased greatly. The islands' mid-Pacific location provided a convenient stop-over for cross-Pacific commerce especially the maritime fur trade, another legacy of Cook's third voyage."

And yes, I have appropriate citations :) Jp2207 (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This looks too detailed for a high-level article which is already stretching the limit of recommended length under policy. Perhaps you could add your sentence to the article on the third voyage or James Cook and indigenous peoples, or Exploration of the Pacific. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a case where the material is valid, and it belongs in the encyclopedia somewhere. But I'm not sure this is the best article. When I think back on all the major biographies of James Cook that I have read, I don't recall any of them emphasizing the fact that Hawaii was"opened up as a result of his visit". I don't doubt that some source said that somewhere, but it was probably in passing ... not a key point about James Cook's life. This article is already over the 9,000 recommended word size, and it simply cannot accommodate every fact ... even when it's correct and accurate. As the other editor says above, there are about 15 other sub articles related to James Cook and perhaps it's more appropriate than one of those. The Wikipedia guideline WP:SUMMARYSTYLE has detailed guidance on what to do in a situation like this: when additional facts need to be added to the encyclopedia - yet the main article is already too large. Noleander (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Your points are fair. I'll mull where else to add the legacy info but agree it should not be here. Getting back my original point, assuming mention of Hawaii is to stay in the first paragraph of the lead, how about changing the last sentence to:

...led the first recorded visit by Europeans to the east coast of Australia and the first recorded non-Polynesian encounter with the Hawaiian Islands.

Better in two ways?: 1. makes it clear these are two distinct firsts 2. “encounter” not “visit” since Hawaii was not his aim Jp2207 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not say "... and, later, the Hawaiian islands." It's more concise. Or "During these voyages...etc" Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel you are prioritizing brevity over accuracy. Cook did not "lead a visit" to Hawaii - he came upon it (unlike the case of Australia which was an objective of the first voyage). Jp2207 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Considering that, your proposed "encounter" wording sounds fine. Gawaon (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

He still led a visit to the Hawaiian Islands. He made landfall twice and looked around. If I see an interesting church I didn't know about while on a country drive and I take my family in to look around the church, I have led a visit to the church. I think the proposed new wording is clumsy and unnecessary. The current wording is more concise and perfectly accurate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Final thought: What if the church and its congregation was hitherto unknown to the entire world (and vice versa) and the result of your visit causes them to be vastly altered? Do you think "led a visit" would later be an accurate summary about you and your day out? Jp2207 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the way it is right now. I agree that it does not specify that they are separate expeditions, but I don't think that is important right here. This sentence is giving a very brief overview of accomplishments, it goes into more detail in the article. I don't think it will make much of a difference to the average reader. KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur with the two editors immediately above who said the current wording is fine. The sentence in question is in the lead, so it should be a engaging statement that gives a good overview to the readers. Additional detail can be in sub articles, or down in the body text. Noleander (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok all. I will accept the majority view. Jp2207 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Mention BLM protests?

I reverteed the good faith edit that added 1 or 2 sentences about BLM protests because I don't believe BLM material is significant enough for this top-level article. There has been a lot of discussion over the past year about what to include/exclude (and trying to keep the article near the recommended 9,000 word size). Much material about protests against Cook has been left out (meaning: it can be and should be in sub-articles ... just not in this article). That said: if someone wants to argue that the BLM material is essential: Please provide quotes from the sources here in the Talk page so we can discuss and compare relative to other material that has been deliberately left-out for space reasons. Again: the material is good for the WP encyclopedia: the only question is: which articles does it go in? An alternative to putting this material in this article is to create a new article on "Anti colonial protests in Australia" (or a similar topic) and put them BLM material in there. Noleander (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your points. I have moved the reference to the Black Lives Matter protests to the article on James Cook and Indigenous Peoples. That article already mentions the link between the attacks on monuments dedicated to James Cook and the global decolonisation movement. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Ruy López de Villalobos' pilot was the first (European) to spot the Hawaii - 150 years before Coock got ashore

Auught to be mentioned. EditorÆ (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You got a source for that there fact? Noleander (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Gaetano (include Brittish sources)

EditorÆ (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't read Portuguese.... can you provide some quotes in English from high quality sources that say that he definitively saw Hawaii? Noleander (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The first sentences of that article say: "Juan Gaetano was a Spanish explorer and navigator who, according to some studies, was the first European to discover the Hawaiian Islands in 1555, two hundred years before Captain James Cook. Several studies have refuted this theory, which they do not consider credible, although doubts remain regarding the possibility that explorers like Gaetano arrived in Hawaii by chance before Cook, during a mission led by Ruy López de Villalobos. Villalobos, commanding a fleet of six ships, set sail from Acapulco in 1542, with Gaetano on board as a pilot. Gaetano's accounts appear to describe either Hawaii or the Marshall Islands, depending on how they are interpreted."

So there's nothing definitive there. Our note u is also relevant: "Some historians speculate that Spanish trading ships may have seen or even visited the Hawaiian Islands before Cook, but kept the discovery secret to protect their lucrative trade route between Acapulco and Manila."

So we already say that some Spanish ships may have seen Hawaii, but that there is no conclusive evidence they did. That's in agreement with the Gaetano article, so I don't think there's anything we need to change here. Gawaon (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The two English language sources cited in the wikipedia article on Juan Gaetano state that there is no credible evidence to support the claim. The vast majority of scholarly books and articles on the matter credit Cook's expedition as being the first Europeans to sight Hawaii. Unless more evidence comes to light, the claim is fringe and not worth mentioning in the Cook article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

https://imagesofoldhawaii.com/first-foreigners-to-find-hawai%CA%BBi/

"But, was Cook the first foreigner to find Hawaiʻi?

“Old Spanish charts and a 1613 AD Dutch globe suggest that explorers from Spain had sighted Hawaiʻi long before Captain Cook. When Cook arrived in 1778, galleons laden with silver from the mines of Mexico and South America had been passing south of Hawaiʻi for two centuries on annual round trip voyages of 17,000 miles between Acapulco and Manila.” (Kane)

“It seems to be almost certain that one Juan Gaetano, a Spanish navigator, saw Hawaii in 1555 AD. A group of islands, the largest of which was called La Mesa, was laid down in the old Spanish charts in the same latitude as the Hawaiian Islands, but 10 degrees too far east.” (Hawaiʻi Department of Foreign Affairs, 1896)

There are undoubted proof of finding the Hawaiian Islands by the Spaniard, Juan Gaetano. This is the first known record of the islands among the civilized nations. There are evident references to this group in the legends of the Polynesians in other Pacific islands. (Westervelt 1923)"

EditorÆ (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You are citing a blog post from the website of a private real estate consulting firm. And the blogger is selectively citing quotes from 1896 and 1923. The James Cook article is a Featured Article. Like all historical articles we rely on the consensus of recent peer reviewed and high quality academic sources. Blog posts citing unspecified secondary sources that are more that 100 years old don't cut the mustard. Please have a look at policy on WP:RELIABLE and WP:FRINGE. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

First- I havn't written it. But "It seems to be almost certain that one Juan Gaetano, a Spanish navigator, saw Hawaii in 1555 AD. A group of islands, the largest of which was called La Mesa, was laid down in the old Spanish charts in the same latitude as the Hawaiian Islands, but 10 degrees too far east.” (Hawaiʻi Department of Foreign Affairs, 1896)"

And if You are aware of the LONGITUDE PROBLEM (how to meassre North and South positions on our planet , has not been very difficult during the last 2400 years or so. But East - West (logitudes) was a very troublesome prior to the CHONOMETER. (just being able to meassure the sun or a specific star and compare to a table was done already by the Greeks). Two very good clocks , one never changed, the other pu to 12' o'clock exactly at noon - and the longitude problem was solved. Cook had chonometers onboard, Gaetano didn't. (Who reached the Sothern pole first, by the way ?) EditorÆ (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

sory for the spelling of "meassure" EditorÆ (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, EditorÆ: as experienced editors are saying, you haven't made the necessary case. High-quality sources of definite support, if possible in English, are indispensable. If there is a longitude problem in the sources, it has to be addressed already in interpreting the sources, not left for WP readers to work out. Come back, by all means, if you can find such sources. Errantios (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I just explained what the "longiture problem" was. And it was solved with one clock set at 12 o'clock at high noon - and the other was during the entire voyage set to 12 o'clock Greenwich Mean Time. A longitude difference of 15 degrees corresponds to exactly one hour difference. EditorÆ (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I said "in the sources". There doesn't seem to be anything more here to discuss. Errantios (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Minor correction. As our planet doesn't orbit the sun in an absolute circle, but as an "tiny" oval, with planet Earth in the one focus - which actually causes the local time of high noon to vary a few minutes over a year. But the logitute problem was solved within a few minutes. High noon is the local time when the sun stands exactly SOUTH - (between the capricorns). THEN if a Dutch Globe from arond 1600 actually puts these islands around about where tey do exist - THEN Cook cannot spotted them first ??? To my knowledgde the spanyards never got a shore, but Cook did. EditorÆ (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Image size and placement

I undid a few good faith changes related to image size & placement.

• The "upright" field was added to a few images with no scale factor. But MOS:IMAGESIZE says: " Just upright alone, with no scaling factor ... is equivalent to upright of 0.75; this usage is confusing and therefore deprecated." Not only is "upright" with no scale deprecated, it actually shrinks the image to 75% size.

• Two images were moved two images from right side to left side. The convention for James Cook is all images on right side. It went through a Featured Article review last year, with all images on the right side.
  • And MOS:IMAGELOC says: "Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement."

• Scale factors on some landscape images (wider than they are tall) were reduced to 1.0. But MOS:IMAGESIZE permits scale factors larger than 1.0:
  • "Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use upright [value other than 1.0 are acceptable] .."
  • " [for example] upright 1.15 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it "15% wider than this user generally wants ..."
  • " When specifying upright values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text.
  • " Images in which a small region of detail is important (but cropping to that region is unacceptable) may need to be larger than normal, but upright 1.6 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text.

Scale factors larger than 1.0 are helpful to readers for landscape images that have lots of detail in them. There are several such images in this article, particularly the maps, but also some paintings. Noleander (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, I had somehow thought that using just "upright" is recommended for images in portrait mode – as I suppose it must have been at some point. I hadn't realized it's deprecated; thanks for pointing that out! Gawaon (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2026 (UTC)