Talk:James Cook

Culture

@Aemilius Adolphin The section is about culture that references Cook. If you believe the section constitutes WP:TRIVIA, then why are you reverting my single edit (which curiously does not even remove the content I added) and not removing other trivia-tier listed items such as the Australian slang phrase? And I will repeat what I said before, I seriously suggest you refrain from flippantly accusing users of engaging in commercial editing (a COI) without any basis. It is unproductive, needlessly unsympathetic, and shows a dearth of interest in the validity of your utterances. Οἶδα (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is about Cook's enduring cultural legacy. You added information about a recently released song from a fringe band about the death of Cook. The reference was an article in a music website which included a promotional video from the band which is clearly promoting the band and the song. Of course, there is a fine line between news and product promotion in the entertainment media, and I would agree that the reference would be appropriate in an article about the band. But this is an article about James Cook. The question is, is this song part of Cook's enduring cultural legacy? We will only know in a decade or two's time. Perhaps it will sink without trace. Perhaps it will become a world wide hit and make the band rich and famous. In the later case, it might then be worth mentioning in an article about Cook. Otherwise the risk is that this section will turn into yet another Wikipedia trivia section listing a random collection of references to Cook in comic books, computer games, TV shows, music, etc. If you think other items in this section should be removed on the same grounds please make your case. Believe me, I will be all ears. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, including a terse phrase like "Commercial promotion" in your edit summary will be interpreted by Wiki editors as a COI accusation and not within such a conception of promotional content. I also never actually disagreed on the point of the entry being on the fringes of trivia. I myself considered the very issue before adding the entry to the section, and was unimpressed by the preexisting state of it. It begins, in list form, with the vague and unsourced declaration that Cook has been the subject of "many" literary creations. A line break follows, and there is a mention of a poetical work with no identification of the actual work. The mention of Slessor's poem does not read as trivia. But a reference to an Australian slang phrase does. The Buzzfeed-tier CNN article may be right and it very well may be a common slang that I am simply unaware of, but is it? Or is it a trivial matter peripheral to Cook's enduring cultural legacy? Οἶδα (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the section is poor. When I get time I will have another look at the literature on Cook's cultural legacy and try to provide a concise overview. I started on it a year ago and was simply overwhelmed by the amount of material to work with. "Having a Captain Cook" is indeed an Australian slang term and I will try to find a more authoritative source for it. (The term is falling out of popular use though. I haven't heard anyone using it with a straight face in over twenty years.) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear. I also realized I overlooked your above commentary about avoiding such sections that invite additions of trivia. Also, it may be interesting to mention Cook's depictions in visual art such as the many paintings depicting his death, including the reported historical revisionism. Οἶδα (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"straight face", Aemilius: neither have I. Errantios (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello all

I have summarised a recent edit with detailed information about a handful of instances where Cook has been depicted in films, documentaries, etc. The problem is that this risks turning into an "in popular culture" section where editors add their favourite TV show with some slight reference to Cook. It is enough to say that Cook, like most famous historical figures, has been often depicted in films and television. Some analysis of the frequency this has happened would be more informative than a potted list of some of these instances. Also see the discussion of culture above.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Cook statues

Hello all

A few editors have added the same information about vandalisation of Cook statues in Melbourne under the Memorials section and the Controversy section. I have consolidated this information in the Controversy section because it most logically belongs there along with the paragraph about Cook's debated role in colonisation. I am also concerned that this article should not record every occasion when a statue of Cook is vandalised or Cook's name is mentioned in debates about colonialism. The article should be about the long term legacy of Cook rather than a collection of news items about political activism related to Cook: WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article aready already adequately covers similar protests.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism is part of one aspect of Cook's many faceted story. It needs to be mentioned, but not every time it happens. We are not a tabloid news service. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes again, but what would be the criterion? In another context it was once agreed [1] that vandalism should be reported only when it constituted "irreparable damage". Maybe that is too restrictive: to prefer "structural damage" would include chopping down a metal artifact, which probably could and would be repaired but the item would likely be missing for several months. Recording structural damage should mention any other action, such as daubing paint, that explains the principal action—although, as in this case, it may be sufficient to leave detail to photos in the media links. Errantios (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing the conflation of the ideas: Cook's first expedition was April-August 1770; however, people conflate this with the First Fleet (that got to Botany Bay ~16 January 1788, and then arrived in Port Jackson on 26 January, with the flag-raising taking place several weeks later.) It was messy, then, and more so now! But, people don't get the difference. - Peter Ellis - Talk 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right Pete. I don't really understand why people want to blame Cook so much. He was a minor British officer, from the lower classes, jut following his orders. He may not have been a perfect human being, but it wasn't his decision to sent the First Fleet to Australia. I really would like to see that emphasised more in our articles. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's true, Australians aren't very good with history. But the theme of the direct action/vandalism of Cook statues is anti-colonialism and given that Cook claimed the entire east coast of Australia for Great Britain is fair enough to consider him at least an "enabler" of the later colonisation of the continent. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I also note that the last paragraph of the article discusses this issue and I think it is adequate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that paragraph addresses the fact that some of the anger towards and criticism of Cook arises from misunderstandings (or to put it more plainly, sheer ignorance and completely wrong beliefs) about the role he played and what he actually did. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that is a fact—but do we have evidence of it? And it is not ignorant, to treat Cook as a representative adopted by colonists—most of all when we are still told, as on the plinth in Sydney, that he arrived as a discoverer. Errantios (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The ignorance is in things like the the statements I've seen in online debates over the date of Australia Day over the past few days that Cook arrived at Sydney with the First Fleet in 1788. I could have saved some examples, but technically, examples don't count as sources. But yes, those inscriptions on statues are a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, Aussiemandias ... Errantios (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversy

I am hesitant for the lead to end on a note of controversy as I don't think that is Cook's principle characteristic or legacy. I think it would make sense to combine this sentence with the bit about memorials to Cook. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I have just done so. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There are abundant reliable sources which state that Cook's legacy is controversial. Let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A big chunk of that controversy comes from misunderstandings, or people simply believing falsehoods about what Cook did. Every year around every Australia Day here in Australia we see claims about him that are just plain wrong. Many people seem to think he brought the First Fleet here to establish the first British settlement. There are other "misunderstandings". I am certain some of this is due to deliberate misinformation. His legacy IS controversial, but not for good reasons. I don't know how we should handle this. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about what is the topic of this article and what is not. The article is about James Cook. Any legacies and controversaries should relate to what he did, not what others did afterwards (in which he was not involved). He left a legacy of cartography of the east coast of Australia, he had interactions with Indigenous people which might be controversial (e.g. the eating of turtles at the Endeavour River which the local Indigenous people regarded as their turtles). But "controversial as an enabler of British colonialism" is going well beyond the topic of this article. Yes, British colonisation is controversial. But Cook wasn't involved in colonising Australia (or anywhere as far as I know). Those were decision of the British Government later on, and some people may have played a large role in each of those decisions but not Cook. The word "enabler" is a classic "weasel word". True, exploring the east coast of Australia led to colonisation, but that's like blaming a poisoner's parents or teachers for the murder because they were "enablers" by bringing a murderer into the world or teaching them that certain chemicals are deadly. Yes, we should mention the damage to statues and so forth, but I think we describe this as a protest against colonialism rather than against Cook. Maybe we should phrase it along the lines of "As Cook's explorations sometimes resulted in the establishment of a British colonyn, statues of Cook have become targets for vandalism by those who wish to protest that colonisation. For example, [list of vandalised statues etc]." Kerry (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very much the position I believe this article should take. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cook claimed the east coast of Australia for Britain and there would have been no British colonisation but for this. His statues state that he "discovered this territory". Surely this is part of his legacy. Protests against this legacy are therefore relevant to the legacy section. Indeed, the protests, and the recent scholarly reaction to the narratives of discovery, are probably the most culturally dominant aspects of his legacy today. Whether we as editors think this is misguided is irrelevant; we simply follow the reliable sources. I think the current balance of the legacy section is about right, as there is much more material on monuments etc. than about the reaction against them. As for "enabler of colonialism" being "weasel words" it is a quote from a prominent recent critique of Cook's legacy. It was originally in the lead as a quote with a source. I would prefer if this version were restored as it would show that the expression wasn't just some editor's weasel words. However, the current wording in the lead was the result of a compromise with other editors who preferred stronger language. (The relevant discussion will be in the arhives somewhere.) The Legacy section of the article explains that it was mainly Banks who advocated the penal colony at Botany Bay and it explains the context of the "enabler of colonialism quote." As I said, I think the legacy section is currently about right and I don't see how Will Thorpe's suggested change improves the article or resolves any of the issues you raise. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cook didn't discover Australia. Obviously not from an Indigenous perspective, but not even from a European perspective, as the existence of some land mass in that area wasknown by Europeans before they dispatched Cook to take more a detailed look at it. It could be argued he "discovered" the east coast (from a European perspective). Which of the citations are you referring to as "a prominent recent critique of Cook's legacy" and can you include the extract in context if it is not a publicly-accessible source please? Thanks. Kerry (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said he discovered Australia, I was talking about the inscriptions on his statues. If you go to the Controversy section, read the sentence on "enabler of colonialism" and click on the reference, you will see the article I mentioned. I can also recommend Proctor's book as a stimulating but wrong-headed discussion of Cook's legacy. The broader point is that in many cases a person's legacy is more about their enduring place in the cultural memory of a society. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I already did that. There are two citations. The first is plainly an opinion piece in a newspaper, and it is not presented as such here on Wikipedia as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It is not even written in temperate tone but uses quite emotive language. Not exactly scholarly. The second is a book that I don't have on my shelf so I would like to know what it says. Kerry (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that the problem is nothing to do with anything Cook did, but with what some idiots wrote on statues. That's NOT Cook's doing. SO it doesn't belong in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nay, sir. We have an article on Cook because what he did is important now. It is important to different people in different ways. A public statue of Cook is to some a public commemoration and to others a public insult. Both that disagreement and the modes of its expression should be acknowledged. Errantios (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's not the statues alone that have caused the problem. It's the iditiotic inscriptions on them. Very few of those to whom it's a public insult have valid reasons to see Cook as the problem. Cook didn't build those statues, nor did he write the inscriptions. We could validly say that a problem has been created by the existence of the statues, and worse, the inscriptions, but saying that Cook himself is the problem is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it is worth doing that this discussion has veered entirely from what I started it for. Will Thorpe (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

there is some errors in false information and i want to help and edit it Skyskysun (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ok Skyskysun (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Death in lead

Surely the context of his death should be added – 'during a dispute'? Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

As I explained to you before on your Talk Page, there is context for this. Previous versions of the lead were verging on ridiculous infinite regress. "viz Cook was killed while trying to kidnap the native king as ransom for return of a longboat which was taken as revenge for the theft of wood from a sacred temple which was taken because the native priest might had given permission, which might have been a ruse to entrap Cook...etc.

The current version looks fine to me. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed change to final lead sentence

Given that the above discussion has entirely fallen to the side, I wish to see if anyone has any opinions on or opposition two combining the final two sentences of the lead as such:

'Numerous memorials worldwide have been dedicated to him and his achievements, while his role as an enabler of British colonialism and his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples remain a source of controversy.'

Kind regards, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with "enabler of British colonialism". The expanded text later in the article, in the Controversy sub-section, explains that's not a universal view. The word "enabler" implies to me an active, conscious contribution to all that came later. As a junior naval officer, dead by the time of decisions regarding the First Fleet, Cook had no say at all in those events. A lot of the controversy involves misunderstandings of what he did. We should not write as if those misunderstandings reflect the truth. He really didn't play much of a role in colonisation at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

On the principle that the lead is meant to summarise the article, the "enabler of British colonialism" label should not be applied there in the way that it does. This is because the main body of the article explains that some apply this term to Cook but then points out that it was Banks who initiated the Botany Bay colony. The Guardian article – cited in the main body of the article on this point – does not actually say that he was an enabler of colonialism, but concentrates more on his crassly insensitive and violent treatment of indigenous people that he met on his travels. On an important point like this, the article should surely be using serious biographies as a source, not a newspaper article. (I do not have access to the other source cited on the "enabler" point – but it is not a biography by an academic historian.) Looking at just one biography (and by a historian who does not qualify for the title "academic historian") Frank McLynn's Captain Cook, Master of the Seas is quite clear that popular criticism of Cook is misplaced in its extent(pg 417). What do other serious historical works say on this point?

So if the main body of the article says "some say this" and "others argue that", then it is entirely wrong for the lead to state just one of these two views. I have therefore made some change to the lead that hopefully deals with this problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted to the stable version until some consensus is reached. I see no consensus for the version of @ThoughtIdRetired. I am happy to consider different wording for the lead, but I am opposed to individual editors trying to impose their own preferred wording when the the issue is currently under discussion and no consensus has been reached. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired To answer your substantive points:

1) The context of the statement in the lead is not confined to "serious works by academic historians" but actual public controversy over the legacy of James Cook. The section is the legacy section. In a general article of James Cook it is necessary to briefly state that he is a controversial figure for the reasons stated.

2) What do "serious academic historians say? Well, here are a few:

Blainey (2020), "Cook's [1767] voyage has become more controversial, especially in Australia where his discovery and its consequences are now questioned by Aboriginal leaders and by many historians. In Sydney his statue was recently vandalised. The great navigator is branded as an invader and destroyer." Pp x-xi

Stephen Gapps (2020) states, " In the broader strategic sense – as all 18th and early 19th century scientific voyages were – Cook’s voyages were part of a European drive to conquer. The aim was to claim resources and trade in support of the British Empire’s expansion."

Nicholas Thomas (2003), states, " It has to be acknowledged, also, that he was in the business of dispossession: he claimed inhabited islands and land right around the Pacific for the Crown."

Thomas also: "Yet when we damn Cook for inaugurating the business of colonization, we are in underlying agreement with traditional Cook idealizers – we are seeing the explorer above all as a founder or precursor…" pp xxxii-xxxiii

In summary, few in the current debate over Cook's legacy are stating that he colonised anything himself. they are stating that he "enabled" British colonisation and imperialism in the South pacific by "claiming possession" of dozens of inhabited places for Britain. Trying to suppress this in the article is ridiculous: it is the dominent view of Cook in recent scholarship and political discussion. The words acedaemics and other commentators use to describe Cook;s role include: "the usher of the colonial land grab – the doorman for British invasion in 1788…" ; "Captain James Cook arrived in the Pacific 250 years ago, triggering British colonisation of the region."; "[We must] confront Cook’s legacy not as the projected shining icon of Enlightenment, but as a mythic presence built on deliberate theft, dispossession and violence." ; "Cook's [1767] voyage has become more controversial, especially in Australia where his discovery and its consequences are now questioned by Aboriginal leaders and by many historians."

I would be happy to change the statement in the lead to: "His role in British imperialism and colonisation remains controversial". Or words to that effect. But to deny that sailing around the world "claiming" inhabited lands for Britain had absolutely no consequence for British imperialism and colonialism is wilful denial and contrary to the predominant view of commentators as demonstrated by the majority of reliable sources for the past 20 years or so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are playing an aggressive and fairly nasty straw man game there. Nobody is claiming that sailing around the world "claiming" inhabited lands for Britain had absolutely no consequence for British imperialism and colonialism. Please stick to discussing what others have actually said, so we can discuss things honestly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

To answer the actual question under discussion:I think your proposed change is inferior to the current version for the reasons I previously explained. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the changes ThoughtIdRetired made and which you reverted provided a good balance. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to be totally clear, this is an issue of whether the lead accurately summarises the article. As it now stands, it does not. It gives only one half of the views represented in the final paragraph of the Controversy section of the article. If you wish the lead to stand as it currently exists, this would rely on changes being made to the main body of the article – something that would clearly need discussion here. In the interim, the lead should not present just one of the opinions found later in the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ThoughtIdRetired that as presently constituted the lede does not accurately summarize the article. I propose an alternative text: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples, and for being an enabler of British colonialism according to some commentators". It seems to me to do the job. Carlstak (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the people who criticise Cook as an enabler of colonialism aren't formal historical commentators. They are people who see things like the stupid inscriptions on statues saing Cook discovered the place, and quite rightfully in my view get angry. Cook didn't put those inscriptions there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired@CarlstakI understand your approach, but the intention of the sentence in the lead isn't to "present just one of the opinions later found in the article." The intention is to show that there is a controversy and one of the points of controversy is whether Cook was an enabler of British imperialism and colonialism. I have changed the wording in the Contoversy section and added two more sources to better identify the point of controversy involved. I suggest a better way of summarising this in the lead would be: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples and there is debate on whether he enabled British imperialism and colonialism." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That's better, but I'm not sure it's quite right yet. HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I would go for something like: "He remains controversial for his occasionally violent encounters with indigenous peoples and there is debate on whether he can be held responsible for enabling British imperialism and colonialism." I am almost tempted to use the words "paving the way for" instead of "enabling". I feel that the issue is "responsibility". We all know that his exploration was a precursor to the later colonisation – the question is whether or not he can be blamed for what others did after him. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's an improvement. I think "enabling" is more concise, but if others prefer "paving the way" I won't object. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur with ThoughtIdRetired's suggestion, and I prefer "paving the way". Carlstak (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)