Talk:James Cook

Joseph Banks an aristocrat ?

He was certainly a member of the Lincolnshire gentry and owned a fine estate at Revesby, but surely should not be called an aristocrat ? Semutfu (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you mean, in the sense that he was not nobility, then he may not fit a strict definition, but the general usage of the word would certainly include well connected landed gentry of means. Jbower47 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why English explorer and not British?

Hi, the first sentence says English explorer, Captain Cook was born after Union of 1707, and therefore is British and not by-law English. The page contradicts it's self - it says in the Info-box - 'Nationality: Great Britain' - when in the first sentence he is referred to as on the English. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with George2001hi on this. Been watching the slow edit war on the matter and cannot see the logic of calling Cook English. I'd really be interested in a sound explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of good faith would go a long way. It is unfortunate that, unfortunate in that I agree with you both, the convention on wikipedia is to refer to English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish rather than British for individuals as various nationals object to the use of the term "British". Likewise the convention is to use British for events related to the British Empire eg the Capture of Gibraltar. Like I say I don't disagree with you but bitter experience tells me different. Regards, Justin talk 22:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My take is a little different. Certain individuals don't like being referred to as British, preferring whichever home country they're from. But certain other individuals insist on being called British. And some don't mind or care either way. That's why we have Category:British novelists, Category:English novelists, Category:Welsh novelists, Category:Irish novelists, and Category:Scottish novelists, and similar divisions. As for Cook, I doubt we have any records that show him referring to himself as "English" vs. "British", so we don't know what he personally preferred. But as far as the outside world is concerned, he is notable for his voyages and discoveries on behalf of the British Navy and the British Crown, so it makes no sense to limit him to his Englishness. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Justin, are you still retired or are you back now? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I neither disagree nor GAF either way. Anyone wish to take a wager on how long it takes for someone to dispute it? I'm retired because I'm fed up with precisely this sort of WP:LAME. Justin talk 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justin and JackofOz. It's an interesting issue. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should be catering for the personal sensitivities of individuals. Rather, it should be reflecting what we find in reliable sources. On that note, I just checked the reference attached to the lead paragraph. It's to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. It says English. But why we're using the 1911 edition is beyond me. I just checked the current online Britannica (at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135983/James-Cook), and it say British. The majority of sources seem to say British. I've also found out that his father was Scottish and he emigrated to Yorkshire. I doubt if he would have wanted to be known as English. Justin, when you refer to "the convention on Wikipedia...", is that documented somewhere? HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW there is no such thing as the British Navy, we do have a Royal Navy though. We use the 1911 edition of EB because it is public domain. As I said to George nationalism is a recipe for a world of pain. The convention I referred to is documented somewhere, it came out of an arbcom decision. I would have to hunt for it. Justin talk 23:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It can't be entirely up to what reliable sources say about these people, HiLo. For example, take two novelists who've lived all their lives in London and write exclusively in English. One's referred to as an "English novelist", the other as a "British novelist". What would cause third parties to discriminate in that way in their labelling? There's nothing rational about it. It all comes down to self-identification, and that, by definition, is a matter for the subjects alone to decide. The only role that reliable sources play is correctly reporting what the subjects themselves choose to be referred to as. But it's terribly vexed when it comes to people we can't ask anymore or who made no known pronouncements on the matter. Was Edward Elgar a British composer or an English composer? Was Laurence Olivier a British actor or an English actor? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problems. I like that sentence: "There's nothing rational about it." Seems accurate, sadly. I grew up among a lot of immigrants to Australia, many from Yorkshire. They tended not to say they were English nor British, but Yorkshiremen.

I wonder if we could resolve this particular issue by rephrasing with words like: "Captain James Cook...was born in Yorkshire, England in the United Kingdom. He became an explorer, navigator and cartographer...in the Royal Navy." HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

British is rarely applied to Welsh, Scottish and Irish in these matters so i can't see any reason why the English are different. It would not be consistent to have the Welsh, Scottish and Irish as such and the English as British.--English Bobby (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rarely? I wonder. Staying with my novelists theme, we currently have 418 British novelists, compared to 1048 English, 155 Welsh, and 83 Scottish. Are you saying almost all of the 418 British novelists are English? There are also 202 Irish novelists; while some of them are from the Republic, some are definitely from NI and are thus British by citizenship. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is most common for English people to be referred to as British but not the Celtic peoples. Of those 418 British novelists i wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of them were Englishmen (or women).--English Bobby (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just did a Google search on two alternatives. Firstly "James Cook" and English. That scored "About 459,000 results". Secondly I tried "James Cook" and British. "About 367,000 results" for that one. What that seems to prove is that one would be mistaken to insist that one description is completely wrong and the other the only correct one. Both seem very common. That English won the poll (albeit inconclusively) might be the only real external factor we have to decide this question. There's certainly no certainty to it!HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look up English Defence League as our resident sympathiser has appeared, I win £5. Justin talk 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of you accusing me of being a EDL agent justin. Just because your having another month long sulk doesn't mean you have to follow me around.--English Bobby (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve done a Google search on a couple of phrases - British James Cook - About 5,620,000 results English James Cook - About 2,480,000 results As you can see the British one has a lot more results, and therefore James Cook is more commonly know for being British rather than English. This just sums it up, more up-to-date sources- like his Britannica Encyclopaedia article. We can’t ask him if he prefers to be called English or British, so we have to make a decision. He was born after the Union of 1707 and therefore British. I’m changing it. Thanks User:George2001hi (talk)

Its not actually that reliable. If you look at some of the Links under "British James Cook" they say "an English explorer". He would have most likely refered to himself as an Englishman in those day's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by English Bobby (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cook may have been born in England but he would have been a British Subject whether he (or anyone else) likes it or not. This applies equally today, there being no internationally-recognised citizenship as 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh', 'Northern Irish', etc., nor can you get a legally-recognised passport for them, despite the wishes of a few independence-minded nationalists. A person may call themselves 'English' 'Northern Irish', 'Scottish', 'Welsh', etc., but as far as Nationality is concerned, they are all British, and would have been since 1707. This also applies to citizens of Commonwealth countries prior to them getting their own citizenship, hence Errol Flynn, Edgar Percival, ('Australians') would also have been 'British', which is what they regarded themselves at the time. The British Empire is the entity responsible for this somewhat confusing, (to foreigners at least), state of affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.168 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Hilo48 said - "Captain James Cook...was born in Yorkshire, England in the United Kingdom. He became an explorer, navigator and cartographer...in the Royal Navy." This is from a neutral point, it gives a sense of his nationality and "ethnicity". It may not coincide with other British explorers such as Lord Nelson, but fits neutrality to-a-tee. This needs sorting to display his nationality within the first sentence, or to fit others' 'opinions' and display ethnicity aswell.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, I have no problem with that. Justin talk 19:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, done - it'll last maybe 5-15 minutes (no need to say who).
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I support that 100%. Regards. Justin talk 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol i love how you put 'other opinions' George when it was you who changed it in the first place because of your own political opinions. I believe it just said English before. The way i'm supporting clearly states his nationality in the info box for all those so concerned, so there is no need to ram it home else where as well .--English Bobby (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the current revision, maybe it needs a little tweaking - but it's fine - neutral. My political opinions may have made me create this discussion, but I'm not the one insisting on a edit war. Maybe you would like deleting everything and replace it with "HE WAS ENGLISH" filling the screen.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it either. See WP:3RR btw Justin talk 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps you should read it as well.--English Bobby (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't mean for it to say 'opinions' it was meant to be in italics (to mean important).
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The current revision is ridiculous. It states exactly the same info as is stated in the info box, all because YOU have an immense hostility to the English.

Also don't try to put it across as i'm the only one trying to edit war, it was another user that changed the word back to English and Justin who kept trying to revert it. But like i said the current revision is nonsense and needs changing. The way i had is perfectly reasonable. Saying he is an Englishman yet clearly showing his nationality in the info box.--English Bobby (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My view has nothing to do with any hostility to the English. If anything, someone with the word English in his username here is the one more obviously likely to have a POV on the matter. Clearly such a person IS biased towards the word, just as I am to my name. (But the reasons for mine will be less obvious to you all.) Let's keep it simple. England is not a country. The United Kingdom is by far the most common name for the country Cook is from. British is by far the most common adjective for someone from that country (apart from the Northern Irish.) So United Kingdom and British should respectively be the noun and adjective used in the Infobox and lead. Some more detail about where he was from is appropriate, in fact required, inside the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol my name doesn't actually have anything to do with my nationalistic sympathies, its simply my nickname (its supposed to be English Bob as in the character from Unforgiven but someone already had that) and i can't see how having a word in your name makes you biased.

To the issue though, the article is now ridiculous. Before it clearly stated his Nationality in the info box whilst referring to his ethnicity in the opener, now it states his place of birth twice at the top of the page all because two users don't like Englishness. The article has called him an Englishman for god knows how many years now with no problem. The problem with this is always with English bio's being singled by people who don't like the word English (their nearly always English themselves) and changed yet the same isn't done to the other ethnicities of the UK. For example Alexander Mackenzie (Explorer) among many more. For some reason Wikipedia seems to think being British must mean you're English and that their exactly the same thing. Being a quarter Welsh a quarter Scottish and half English (not half British) makes me appreciate the difference for my part.--English Bobby (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who thinks that British means English. The latter is a subset of the former, which represents the country, and hence nationality. There's no way I would support Scottish or Welsh as nationalities either. Neither Scotland nor Wales are countries. And I can't see where ethnicity comes into this at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm from England, but I'm half Scottish - I prefer to be called British, because of my background. Cook's father was Scottish, he would have rather been know as British, plus he's ethnicity isn't English anyway - he's half Scottish half English. Surely because he served for his country on the seas - he should be known as being British. Maybe the text that says 'born in Yorkshire...' should be swapped with his career - 'explorer, navigator and cartographer...' - maybe merging it into one sentence. Maybe the England link - can be piped to English People and Kingdom of Great Britain piped to British People. Fair - that's meeting your opinions half way.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

English Bobby does nothing substantive on wikipedia except change British to English and when he doesn't get his own way he edit wars or resorts to personal abuse. I thought it only fair to bring this to your attention. This is why I don't try and engage him in talk anymore, good luck. Justin talk 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And Justin doesn't do anything other than revert people's edits often with a rude reply in the edit summary. Nothing else. Also if we're bringing up these things Justin is currently on a 3 month ban from editing Gibraltar articles because of his appalling abuse to other users who showed nothing but polite tolerance of him.--English Bobby (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin is completely right; pretty much all of your contributions for quite some time seem to be hijacking biographical articles to change "British" to "English". Most people outside Britain/England/whatever you think it should be called wouldn't even realise there is a difference in the first place, so it's really quite pathetic to see you getting so worked up about your vigilante crusade.(Huey45 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Another one who's attitude has almost landed them in hot water. Someone who often thinks they own articles and can only attack other peoples work by accusing them of vandalism, that getting then into trouble. It would all be funny if it weren't so pathetic.--English Bobby (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The irony of grown men spending their time having virtual slapfights over how to describe another grown man who spent his time having fantastic adventures should not be lost on us....let's maintain a sense of perspective. He was in the Royal Navy, it is a British institution. Therefore he was a British explorer. Now if the man is English by origin, it is arguably fine to describe him as either English or British when referring to his personal life. But in reference to actions performed in the line of duty and his general reputation as an explorer for the Royal Navy, he is and remains British. Let's separate our petty squabbles about the current sociopolitical implications of calling something British/English, and concentrate on a NPOV description based on what he was, at the time.Jbower47 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us not start a row again - the decision was that Cook would be referred to as a Anglo-Scot, his mother was English and father was Scottish. I believe the current lead sentence is fine.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Scot isn't a nationality so don't even bring it into the equation almost every admiral, explorer, and so forth that are born in England are listed as English to change it to Anglo-Scottish because his father was Scottish is ridiculous, I bet you no one wouldn't dare change Sean Connery and Billy Connelly to Scots-Irish, in fact why aren't they listed British, why isn't David Stirling listed as British he served in the British armed forces, he had English ancestry, Why isn't Andy Murray listed as British he plays for great Britain in tennis and has English ancestry on his mothers side, but it's okay if English people are listed as British so every other country in the union gets to share our achievements. As said below it's more accurate to Call him English as he is at the end of the day.Davido488 (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care how good you think your logic is, a discussion does not consist simply of posts from you. Changing the article at that point, as you have just done, is completely unacceptable. I actually care about Wikipedia rules, so I won't revert again. I ask that you revert your own revert, and await proper discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for an opinion on my logics, I was expressing my view on why he should be listed as English, you should know that David Stirling, Sean Connery, Andy murray and many other notable people are all listed Scottish when their ancestries can take them to places such as England and Ireland, why aren't they listed as British or by their ethnicity, so please don't persist to beat around the bush and accuse me of anti-civil behavior whilst overlooking the fact that I'm giving reasonable arguments of why Cook should be listed as English.Davido488 (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

May I simply state, I do not wish to continue this; I started this discussion, when I was unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines, I didn't even sign my comment - enough said. I hereby retract my opinions and thoughts from this discussion. And HiLo48 - thank you for supporting me with the original edit, but the Newbies and Trolls will always have the upper-hand, they are simply too numerous, and pushing one away brings another back. We/I are somewhat of a dieing bred - a British patriot, the left-wing and sporting events have took their toll on education, and Wikipedia must distort with it. I edited this page without the knowledge that it was deadbeat, never any edits apart from edit wars. I don’t agree with the what has been said on this page, but I’ve realised that I must be the bigger-man and step out of this childish ignorant hypocritical discussion.
God Save the Queen
--George2001hi (Discussion) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You express succinctly why I spend less and less time on wikipedia. Narrow minded nationalism and the trolls/newbies that promote it. Expect no support from admins or elsewhere, the national sport on wikipedia is finding reasons to do nothing about disruptive editors. You're also a dying breed in being someone who cares about writing a quality article, so much more important to promote nationalism or other petty nonsense. Justin talk 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish, If you have even bothered to read one of my previous messages on this talk page I said for the time being let us put the Link to British people but you arrogantly continue reverting it back to Anglo-scots which clearly shows your force feeding your personal views upon this article for readers to come across. I'm trying to be reasonable by meeting you half way but you want to be greedy well I'm afraid it won't happen I'm directing British from Anglo-Scots to British people.Davido488 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with linking "British" to "British people", seems to make sense. --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First to map Newfoundland

The second sentence begins, "Cook was the first to map Newfoundland...". I had to check the link to make sure it was about some other Newfoundland, surely not the one in Canada. But it is in fact the Canadian island being described. Cook was the first to map it. Huh. And here I thought even Cabot mapped Newfoundland, if not all of it, nor with much accuracy. Here's a web page showing various historic maps of Newfoundland. Obviously Cook was not "the first to map Newfoundland" as claimed here. Reading farther down the page I learned what he really did, which was to spend five years surveying, resulting in "the first large-scale and accurate maps of the island’s coasts". This is quite different from what is said in sentence two. Also, it would be nice if the more detailed info were referenced--give us at least one source about this! This page, titled James Cook Map, says, about maps of Newfoundland, "It was not until the start of the last quarter of the 18th century that maps based upon scientific surveys appeared. Among the best made of the island was the 1775 map of James Cook and Michael Lane." To me this suggests that Cook may not even have been the first to bring scientific surveying methods to Newfoundland, just that his work was "among the best" of the time. It also points out his mapping work was done in collaboration with Michael Lane (whoever that was). This map was published in 1768, just barely after Cook's last survey season in 1767. Unfortunately the page doesn't say whether it was made by Cook or not.

Anyway, I'll see if I can find better info. For now I am just going to remove the second sentence's mention of mapping Newfoundland. Feel free to put it back, but maybe with slightly less bizarre wording? Pfly (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've put in a less bizarre version. Feel free to tweak.-gadfium 07:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, looks fine. I did a quick search for sources and of course there are tons, some extremely detailed. It seems that Cook did an extremely good job. One book says his Newfoundland charts were "a thing almost overpowering in its detail and colour as well as size. This was raising British hydrographic surveying to a new power." It's also interesting that he published them himself, at his own expense. The Admiralty had no hydrographic department at the time, and "engraved nothing and published nothing". They would have basically put Cook's surveys "into a cupboard". It's too late for me to try to write up anything tonight. Maybe tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Why should he be listed as British just because his father was Scottish, oh hang on his father is listed as Scottish shouldn't he be listed British, cook was born in England and listing him as English which he was is much more accurate and is written for other admirals such as nelson why should England share its people with the rest of Britain when we cannot call other people British George you wanted a discussion well here it is.Davido488 (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all been discussed above. What do you have to offer this discussion that is truly new? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The Royal Navy is a British institution, as a serving officer in the Royal Navy, British seems more appropriate. He was also half-Scottish, being of Scottish parentage. I see you've also canvassed a like minded editor may I draw your attention to WP:CANVAS and also WP:3RR as edit warring seems a silly thing to be blocked for. Regards, Justin talk 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin do you have proof of him being proud of his Scottish heritage, because he never quoted of it, and even if he was half Scottish he was born in England making him English, may I inform you that the Surname Cook is as English as can be, so how do you know hes an Anglo-Scot, Cheers.Davido488 (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find the relevant discussion above. Actually Cook or Cooke is in fact also a Scottish surname. Oh and I'm an Evil Scotsman! Regards, Justin talk 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry friend it is relevant it's whether his dad was ethnically Scottish and Cook is a English surname Old English Coc http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Cook, http://genealogy.about.com/od/surname_meaning/p/cook.htm, http://www.ancestry.com/facts/cook-name-meaning.ashx, and even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_(surname), cheers.Davido488 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] It is also Scottish, as I pointed out to you. Justin talk 14:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC) BTW be wary of online sources being merely a copy from the wiki article, fallen foul of that myself. Justin talk 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That was Cooke, Cook is what we are discussing and his fathers surname is of English origin, there are 3 sources all saying English origin, here is another http://www.houseofnames.com/cook-family-crest, and here is it saying Cooke is also of English origin http://www.houseofnames.com/Cooke-family-crest Peace out.Davido488 (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cook and Cooke are variations on the same spelling as it happens. I see you've failed to note the previous comment. Ah well. Justin talk 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Of which Cooke is also a Surname of English origin as It is a subsidiary of the Old English coc, so your point is? Just face it I have more references all saying English origin, face it Cook is an English surname, James Cook is on the list of English people article, theres nothing you can do about it, loads of people in Scotland have English surnames its nothing unusual.Davido488 (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving?

Does anybody have any objection of me placing automatic archiving on this talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy and a lot of the discussions are fairly old. I was thinking of older than a 100 days and leaving the last 10 discussions. Which would be done by MiszaBot I.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --George2001hi (Discussion) 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a automatic index of the archives. --George2001^hi 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANER

I've ran WikiCleaner through this and simplified a lot of redirects (piping them), so if there's any problems with them, just go-ahead and fix them.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 21:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Murdered?

I really think the links to "People Murdered In Hawaii" and "British people murdered abroad" categories need to be removed. Not only do the links clearly espouse an imperialist perspective, but implying that Cook was "murdered" by the Hawaiians is ridiculous and racist. If that's the case, then every notable indigenous person who has died as a consequence of European or Western expansion needs to be listed as "murdered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.200.132 (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you die at the hands of another person it is murder, it's as simple as that. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia - not a list of deaths, a list of tribal people who have died would be out-of-place here. You seem to suggest that Hawaiians can't commit murder, now that's racist. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have responded without being rude (e.g. linking to the murder article. I know what murder is, thanks) and putting words in my mouth, but clearly you have some sort of vested interest in this article and aren't willing to entertain other people's viewpoints. What I am suggesting is that Captain Cook died in a dispute between two parties from different nations, something that sounds a lot more like an act of war than an act of murder. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly have to accept that most deaths in war are not murder. If they are, the category "People Murdered In Hawaii" would have to include everyone who died at Pearl Harbour during the Japanese attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Since when was there a war between the Hawaiians & the Brits? Unless you mean to suggest a treacherous sneak attack...which probably involves George III & PM Lord North in a conspiracy.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (which seems to be favoured, because it is in the public domain) -

"... and thence made his way back to the Hawaiian group, which he had christened after his friend and patron Lord Sandwich, then head of the British admiralty (January 17th, 1779). Here he visited Maui and Hawaii itself, whose size and importance he now first realized, and in one of whose bays (Kealakekua) he met his death early in the morning of the 14th of February 1779. During the night of the 13th, one of the "Discovery's" boats was stolen by the natives; and Cook, in order to recover it, made trial of his favourite expedient of seizing the king's person until reparation should be made. Having landed on the following day with some marines, a scuffle ensued which compelled the party to retreat to their boats. Cook was the last to retire; and as he was nearing the shore he received a blow from behind which felled him to the ground. He rose immediately, and vigorously resisted the crowds that pressed upon him, but was soon overpowered."

That seems like murder to me, rather than a battle. --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

According to whose laws? Murder is a legal concept, with huge differences in its meaning between cultures. Unless it can be demonstrated that the Hawaiian's actions were "murder" under their laws, t's not the right word for this event. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it goes under moral laws and the common use of the word as murder, they snuck-up on him and killed him. It wasn't like he was shot during a firefight, like Nelson was. It's comparable - in way to being stabbed by someone, he was just minding his own business.

Anyway, I don't see the difference between "murdered" and "killed" in this context. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 10:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems like I'm not the only person to disagree with you on the difference between "murdered" and "killed" in this context. And your belief that it's under "moral laws" that Cook was allegedly "murdered" is exactly the imperialist perspective that I'm talking about. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. While it may sound like I'm repeating myself, I must ask - Whose moral laws? HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't drag my beliefs into a discussion about the article; I regret the debate above, and I feel you are being hostile - You doing what I'd expect a Anti-Imperialist would do. I must admit that "murdered" is out-of-place, but what I'm arguing is that the negative perspective shouldn't be placed on Cook, like they killed him for a valid reson. Wikipedia is neutral. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't really sneak up on him either. He probably wasn't expecting it, but nevertheless it was in the middle of a hostile confrontation. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. Being told "Please don't drag my beliefs into a discussion about the article" by someone who commenced his previous post with "I believe..." Hmmmm. Anyway, yes, of course we should aim for neutrality. We should describe what happened with the least possible colour in the language. Words like killed are usually fine. Died, in a conflict with... can be OK too. Precise details, as described above, are obviously good too, so long as we're sure of them. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about my political beliefs, not my opinion on this article matter. --George2001hi (Discussion) 13:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and wasn't repling to HiLo48, it was to 71.33.200.132. I can understand the mix-up, annoying things - indents are. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have dragged your beliefs into this discussion if you hadn't written "I believe that it goes under moral laws and the common use of the word as murder." You're the one who started projecting your culture's own morality onto another, ancient culture with a different set of rules, which is exactly what the westerners that came to Hawai'i did. And you're right, I was being hostile, but considering your first response to me, you shouldn't have expected anything less. In any case, every statement you make supports my argument that you, or whoever else is vehemently maintaining this article, are projecting your personal beliefs and value judgements on the events that happened by linking to the aforementioned categories, thus negating a "neutral point-of-view." 71.33.200.132 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"projecting your culture's own morality onto another, ancient culture with a different set of rules" So you believe the Polynesians (which the Hawaiians were) had no concept of wrongful killing? Whatever name they gave it, I'm fairly sure they did. As for "unjustified", I'm not sure if Polynesians had the concept of "property". (Some Native American groups seem not to.) If not, "theft" may not have occured to them. The whole thing may have been a misunderstanding. That being true, "murder" may also be mis-stating. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on 71.33.200.132, what do you actually what changing - or is this a hate speech to Cook. --George2001hi (Discussion) 19:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to both comments: TREKphiler, I'm not at all saying that the Polynesians had no concept of wrongful death. What I am saying is that I think it's a big leap to call it "murder." Remember, Cook's death did not occur until after he attempted to take the King hostage. The ancient Hawaiians could be, at times, a savage people and under the kapu system, sometimes an offense that we would view as relatively minor could be punishable by death (such as a commoner casting a shadow upon a chief). It's not unreasonable to believe that they were simply protecting their ruler. George2001hi I didn't understand the first part of your sentence, but I have no hatred for Cook. What I do have is a problem with calling Cook's death a "murder" by linking to the aforementioned categories. 71.33.200.132 (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'd say willfull killing is murder, however justified it might seem, outside a systematic act: that is, unless it's sanctioned by something like a court. (The right or wrong of death penalty is a separate issue.) This wasn't (as I understand it, anyhow), which makes it murder. It may've been based in a mistake by Cook & his men (& cultural sensitivity was no strong point for 18hC Brits, to be sure), but that doesn't excuse the Hawaiian response, however legitimate it might seem to them. (I'll agree, defense of their ruler is legit; use of lethal force when none was applied, IMO, isn't. I will, however, admit total ignorance of the kapu system.) Put it another way: is it OK for U.S. frontier settlers to kill Indians for stealing cattle? Even if the Indians routinely do it & have done for centuries, among themselves? Or is that murder? Or is it only murder if whites do it? Or only if it's done by a group that recognizes the concept? This isn't as simple as you're making it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It might help if one of you explains why one or both of you are so hell-bent on calling this killing (that rose out of a conflict in which both parties committed wrong acts) a "murder." If you really want to look at this from a legal standpoint, the act would most likely be classified as voluntary manslaughter with provcation. As I see it, it's only "murder" because you want to call it "murder." If one of the Hawaiians who participated in the boat theft or who was guarding the king were killed in the ensuing melee, I wouldn't be calling it "murder," either. I have a feeling that if the situation was the same and the roles of the two parties reversed, you (not you specifically, but the general "you") wouldn't be calling it "murder." 71.33.200.132 (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For a start, how about unprovoked killing of Cook himself? Unless you mean to say he personally snatched the Hawaiian king, which I'd consider fantastic. Or the fact he appears to have been struck from behind, which, considering his rank, suggests stealth, which would suggest murder, rather than death in battle. (RN SOs aren't usually so exposed.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:30 & 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay - here's the roles reversed - I'm a British explorer, I travel to pre-explored Hawaii, I meet a chef and his people; then one night I discover immense hatred to one of the people, and kill them on their way back to their cabin/home. Now that still is murder. Cook was murdered under British law, and the described explorer was a murderer. Wikipedia is bias due to who writes it, it may only briefly cover a subject - that may in some groups be notable. It's just the way it goes. --George2001hi (Discussion) 09:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Death of Cook image

• 
  By John Cleveley, unknown - depicting Cook in hand-to-hand combat with the Hawaiians (the current one used).
• 
  By Johann Zoffany, c. 1795 - depicting Cook injured on the ground.
• 
  By unknown, unknown - depicting Cook as a peacemaker.

The current image used to illustrate Cook's death is not the only one available, the other two I've found are of greater quality and Cook is seen more clearly on the Zoffany painting. So which one should be used? Personally I prefer the Zoffany painter. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The "unknown" image is clearly inferior, the other two are reasonably OK. At a pinch, I agree Zoffany is a clearer portrayal of the subject of the article. Euryalus (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to changing the image to the "Zoffany" painting? --George2001^hi 15:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --George2001^hi 13:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hypocrisy

If James Cook was Scottish, Welsh or Irish, he would be listed as such. But because hes English, he's identified as British? How is that fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.184 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is false. We have no evidence that he considered himself English first and British second. In the absence of that, we have to take the default position and say that, because he was representing the British government in the voyages for which he is famous, he is best described as a British explorer. It is not the case that people from Scotland/Wales/Ireland are automatically described as of Scottish/Welsh/Irish nationality; it's more likely than not, I agree, but we are always guided by their own self-identification, whatever it is, where it exists. We have no such statement from Cook. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

we have no evidence of what many historical figures identified themselves as. There was little distinction between "british" and "english" back then, they were interchangeable. But as always with Wikipedia, if you try describe Scots, Irish or Welsh as British, you would have the welsh, irish and scottish brigades on here demanding they are not. So why should only Englishman, have to be British? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.72 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, your premise is false. Just take Category:British novelists, for example. It has 442 entries. Many of these people are/were indeed English, but by no means all of them. It includes people from the other parts of the UK who are described as "British". Then there's Category:English novelists (1,111 entries), Category:Irish novelists (216), Category:Scottish novelists (165), Category:Welsh novelists (91), and Category:Cornish novelists (5). Thats just novelists. The same distinctions would apply in any other field. This demonstrates that it is simply not true that Wikipedia never describes people from Scotland, Wales or Ireland as "British". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

your premise is false. This list is just a grouping. ive looked through it and not all are decribed as british in the opening sentence and vast majority, are either English or were born abroad. Some on that category you provided are even described as "Northern irish". So I will say again, if James Cook was Irish, Scottish, or Welsh, he would be described as such. Please stop this hypocrisy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.72 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

james cook is my valentine