Talk:James Cook

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024

The long held belief that Captain Cook’s son James, died without issue has in 2024 been disputed in a new book. . Verifiable evidence based on the discovery of a newly discovered 18th century government document discovered in the British National Archives reveals history changing facts about the family of James Cook senior, including compelling evidence that there are indeed direct descendants throughout the world via his son James junior.­. The book presents not only a full transcript of the Naval enquiry into the supposed drowning of James junior, but also evidence of an orchestrated cover-up of the incident and genealogical evidence to support the theory that James may have deserted his post and returned to his wife and son in North Yorkshire. Mr Yorky (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a fringe theory. WP:Fringe When it is taken seriously by a significant number of experts in the field we can consider incorporating it in the article. At this stage, the claims of "an orchestrated cover-up" rings alarm bells. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like Aemilius Adolphin is prone to arbitrary decisions based on his own beliefs and prejudices. Unless he has read the contents of the book, how does he come to the 'fringe theory' conclusions. It would seem this comment is made merely because it 'Sounds Like' a fringe theory to him. His decision making based on personal feelings must ring alarm bells for any contributor /editor of Wikipedia Mr Yorky (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm just following policy. It's not me you need to convince, it's a significant number of experts in the field. When this happens we can incorporate the theory. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The review of this book for the Captain Cook Society pronounces it generally unreliable. Looks like it isn't worth a mention in the article body,let alone in the lede. Errantios (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit request: Inappropriate representation of opinion as fact

The final sentence of the third paragraph ("He displayed a combination of seamanship, superior surveying and cartographic skills, physical courage, and an ability to lead men in adverse conditions.") is opinion and not verifiable fact for an historical figure. Other unverifiable opinions about James Cook have equally valid claim to being included at this point in the article, yet they are not.

The most principled approach is to simply delete this sentence. Regardless of the need to balance powerful positive and negative sentiments toward a controversial figure, this sentence has no business being included in an encyclopedia entry without both in-text attribution (e.g. "Contemporaneous British colonial sources state that ...") and relevant citations. 203.185.220.159 (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The characterizations of Cook are based on those found in reliable sources—ergo, they're perfectly verifiable—and are not less empirical than many others made routinely in biographies. The lead is meant to summarize the article body, which in turn is meant to provide balanced coverage of our sources, and what you suggest would be needless (and misleading) editorializing of our sources unless it can be shown to be proportional to said coverage. Remsense ‥ 论 08:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If they are verifiable, then as described in the request they should be attributed, and be cited to a source. Frankly this is a desperately poor response. 203.185.220.159 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to read the entire article. The lead is a summary of the article and the statements you object too are properly sourced in the body of the article. Indeed it is the overwhelming consensus of the majority of scholars. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Hello all

I have made another attempt to rewrite the lead more concisely and make it a more accurate summary of the article. In particular:

1) I have cut the repetitious mentions of Hawaii. We state in the first paragraph that Cook was the first known European to visit Hawaii. There is no need to say it again in the last paragraph. See WP:REDUNDANCY

2) I have restored the mention of his charting the coastlines of Newfoundland. According to the article, it was this and his astronomical observations there that brought him to the attention of the Royal Society. It is therefore worth mentioning in the lead.

3) I have added that Cook made contact with various indigenous peoples and claimed various lands for Britain. This is covered in the article and it is odd that it was not previously mentioned in the lead.

4) I have removed the links to New Zealand and Hawaii. These are well known lands and there is no need for them to be linked. See WP:OVERLINK.

@Jp2207 We have previously discussed this so please let me know if you have any concerns over my changes.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)