Talk:James Cook

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 [1], 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)