Jump to content

Talk:James Cook/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 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)

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:

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

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Cook/Archive_7&oldid=1318834963"