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)

@Aemilius Adolphin, thanks for the copy editing. My only concern is with your point 4.

A) I looked at WP:OVERLINKING. This (sensibly) advises against "excessive" overlinking. It also implies that, notwithstanding general advice to not link to countries & geographical features, it may be acceptable to link to "a term [which is] particularly relevant to the context in the article". It also states "The lead of an article usually has a greater density of links than later parts of the article."

B) We always need to check our "demographic biases" on what is "well known"

C) I also took a look at the leads of other articles on notable explorers.

Matthew Flinders links to Australia

Vasco da Gama links to India

Henry Hudson links to Canada

John Cabot links to North America

Thus, I appeal to you that there is strong case to link to NZ & Hawaii in the lead here. Cook is hugely significant in the history of both places and neither can be assumed to be familiar to a general reader. The link to "Australia" is trickier, but here I felt linking to "New Holland" as a historical concept aids understanding of the history and the context of Cook's achievement. In any case, the linking was surely not "excessive".

I look forward to your counter arguments. Jp2207 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Links are not only there to explain which place/person/thing you are referring to – they are also to make it easy for the reader to go there quickly and easily to check something unexplained (probably for perfectly good reasons) in the article. With the link, it is really a couple of mouse clicks to visit the link and then come back to the article. In short, we are making it easy for the encyclopaedia user. I think the principle of over-linking really applies to repeatedly linking the same word throughout the article. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Policy on overlinking is pretty clear:

In addition, major examples of the following categories should generally not be linked:

• Countries (e.g., Brazil/Brazilian, Canada/Canadian, China/Chinese)
• Geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America)
• Settlements or municipalities (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia)
• Languages (e.g., English, Arabic, Korean, Spanish)
• Nationalities, ethnicities or identities (e.g., British, Japanese, Turkish, African American, Nigerian)
• Religions (e.g., Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)

The problem, as I see it, is to discourage overlinking creep and the best way to do this is to follow policy on overlinking. If we link New Zealand and Hawaii, on what basis can we ask other editors not to start linking other common words in the lead which have separate articles such as: Britain, British, Pacific, Atlantic, Southern Ocean, cicumnavigation, merchant navy, teenager, island, cartographer, indigenous peoples, surveying etc.? Indeed, I was sorely tempted to delink "Captain" which is a very commonly used word. The purpose of links is to make it easier to understand the article. If there really are people out there who have never heard of Hawaii and New Zealand and are incapable of googling it, I don't think all the links in the world will help them understand the article. Perhaps an early link to a map of the world or to a detailed map of Cook's voyages would be more helpful than the links you propose? I certainly would find them more helpful. Perhaps linking common words is an inferior way of addressing the problem you imagine. Maybe a link to the simple English article on James Cook would be better for people who have never heard of Hawaii? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

After re-reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, I concede on the points that I made. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, I do appreciate the collaboration. I just want wikipedia to get better - and for me to be a better editor!

“If there really are people out there who have never heard of Hawaii and New Zealand, and are incapable of googling it...”

Yet I confess I find that statement astonishing as, imo, it runs counter to wikipedia’s raison d’etre. “Having heard of” something is not the same as “having knowledge or understanding of” something. For the curious, in an ideal world, I want that the solution to such ignorance is not to “google it” but to consult a reliable wikipedia! Isn’t that the whole point of wikilinks?

That said, I get the guidance in MOS:OL, esp the link creep tendency. So I agree that linking to "Captain" is perhaps MOS:OL. But I fear that your stance in this instance is going too far the other way. I suggest that linking to geographic features and countries - even "well known" is fine (and useful!) if judiciously and sparingly used, depending on the context.

I’d very much like your thoughts on the leads of those other articles I cited - my point C above? Do you assess those as overlinked? How about London - a wikipedia Good article - where the first sentence links to both England and the United Kingdom.

Thanks again. Jp2207 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again for your cooperative approach. I haven't read the other articles you mention but it sounds like they don't follow policy. These aren't articles I am particularly interested in and they aren't on my watch list, but if you wish to take the matter up on the talk pages of these articles please be my guest. There might also be a project page which discusses the issue of linking in articles so might be able to contribute to that. In the meantime, I will unlink "Captain" because it is even less useful than the links to New Zealand and Hawaii. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This has been very enlightening to me to understand when to link/not link and also how to strike a balance between overlinking and underlinking. Allow me to share my further thoughts.

The criteria is not whether an item/word/concept is “well-known”  but rather whether the reader will improve their “understanding of the topic at hand” by following the proposed link. I note, for example, that today’s featured article “The Sun” immediately and correctly links to the article “star”. Thus “London” pointing to “England” and the “United Kingdom” is valid even though these are well-known concepts. Likewise, it is valid that “Geography of Ireland” (a featured article, no less) points to “Ireland” and the “Atlantic Ocean”.

So to answer your question:

“on what basis can we ask other editors not to start linking other common words in the lead which have separate articles such as: Britain, British, Pacific, Atlantic, Southern Ocean, circumnavigation, merchant navy, teenager, island, cartographer, indigenous peoples, surveying etc”

I thus concede that, for names of oceans, New Zealand, Hawaiian Islands there is reason to not link in an article about “James Cook” the man, and to leave these to the distinct articles on his three voyages (which rightly do link to these!).

“Circumnavigation, merchant navy, island, indigenous peoples” - these do not deepen knowledge of the man and wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Yet:

Britain / British - there is an argument for linking to Kingdom_of_Great_Britain, the 18th century historical entity, as this may deepen an understanding of the ethnicity of the man, the political body whose interests he represented, and the legacy of his achievements in our modern world. Who would deny linking “Julius Caesar” to “Roman”?

Cartographer - maybe reasonable to link to “cartography”, a discipline of the man?

Appreciate any comments. Jp2207 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that policy states (see above) that common words and the names of well known cities, countries religions, nationalities, geographic features etc generally should not be linked. If some are linked in other articles it is contrary to policy. If these are rated as good articles of featured articles then probably the links were added after that status was granted and the status hasn't been reviewed. Apparently there is some tool which automatically links every word which has an article and unfortunately there are many editors who do nothing but add every link it can find to articles. As for the other Cook articles, I will have another look at them but my memory is that it was you who insisted that some of these links be added to them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it not possible that policy as stated "should generally not be linked" means "usually don't link but may need to use judgement as there could be circumstances where it is ok"? It doesn't read "do not link".

Also, your view on this policy begs a question for me: Under what circumstances would you regard it as valid to link to a major geographical feature or country article?

And are you saying that policy would dictate that an article on "The Sun" should not link to "star"? Jp2207 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasons for arguing that New Zealnd and Hawaii should not be linked in the lead of this article. If other editors wish to express an opinion about linking in this article then they are free to do so and if a consensus emerges for linking these words in this article then that can override general policy. Discussions about other articles and linking policy in general should be conducted on the Talk pages of those articles. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin I already conceded on the use of NZ and Hawaii links here. I am only trying to understand the policy/guidance so I can help make wikipedia better . But this isn't the forum for that so I'll go elsewhere.Thanks Jp2207 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for my brusque tone above. I did find the discussion interesting and it helped me clarify my views on linking. I would be happy to engage in further discussion on the other Cook articles which I hope to revise somewhat in the coming weeks. However, I do think that the Talk page of the policy guideline on linking (or perhaps the project page) is the best place to raise general questions on linking policy. The general rule, as I understand it, is that policy should be followed unless there is a local consensus against it on a particular page. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)