Talk:Death of James Cook

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

{{subst:GAN|subtopic=world history}}

untitled

[edit]

The intuitive WP:UE/WP:COMMONNAME page title for this would probably be Death of James Cook. Just saying. It may be different for haw-wiki, but on en-wiki, the search term "Death of Cook" is going to be more frequent than "kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu". --dab (𒁳) 05:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing title. Change to "Death of Captain James Cook"

[edit]

The present title "Kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu by Captain James Cook" sounds like an embarrassed justification for the killing of Cook. It is not neutral. It would be equally embarrassing to give this article the title "Theft of Cook's Lifeboat". The sad truth is that a dispute escalated. The title should be replaced by the main outcome, "Death of Captain James Cook". 86.170.122.241 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the title should be changed, especially if as written here the kidnapping never actually took place. Omikroergosum (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 178.250.98.188 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ‘Death’ would be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenGlobetrotter (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with Hawaii

[edit]

Here and in Kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu by Captain James Cook it says Cook was killed when trying to abduct the king. In the other article it says Cook took the king for ransom to his boat. Omikroergosum (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The summary box on the right completely ignores any casualties suffered by the Hawaiians. It only lists the 5 deaths and 2 non fatal injuries of the crew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.104.98 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account does not align with that of Samwell, an actual eyewitness to the death; refer pp 987-1300, and generally acknowledged to be accurate. Needs this perspective. 69.158.246.164 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu by James Cook → Death of James Cook – Consensus on talk page. "Death of James Cook" is the most common name in English and is more neutral as Kalaniʻōpuʻu was not kidnapped and Cook's death was the main outcome. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editorializing

[edit]

The second paragraph about the effects of European colonization has nothing to do with the subject of the article. If this was "James Cook's visits to Hawaii" there would be context. But his death did not lead to the fall of the native monarchy. 108.30.115.193 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Seems out of place. Indeed, his death/the topic of the article has nothing to do with the fall of the native monarchy. If the article were about the arrival of James Cook, the paragraph would be relevant.  BC  talk to me 18:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kealakekua Bay

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was merge. The proposal has been unopposed for a month. Zacwill (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article's content overlaps with that of Battle of Kealakekua Bay. A merge is probably in order.—Myasuda (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do both articles cover the same events, but the idea that the altercation constituted a "battle" is absurd. I'd be surprised if any reliable sources referred to it as such. Zacwill (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"aboriginal" should be changed

[edit]

in the first paragraph it says mentions the Hawaiian monarchy at the time of the overthrow as "aboriginal". that is pretty misleading as the Hawaiian kingdom was one of the most developed countries at the time and was a world power. it would be better to say constitutional.

it would of been aboriginal at captain cooks time, not at the time of the overthrow. 808Poiboy (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Aboriginal" does not necessarily mean "primitive". All the word "aboriginal" implies here is that the monarchy was composed of indigenous Hawaiians, unlike the settler government that followed it. Zacwill (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
aaah ok. should that still be edited to another word? 808Poiboy (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need to change it. "Native" or "indigenous" would also work, I guess. Zacwill (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Josh Allen?

[edit]

"In the first Wikibox, the participants' section includes Josh Allen, linking to the American football quarterback's page. Is this an error because Josh Allen isn't mentioned, but the name 'John Allen' is in the final paragraph?" WhatBevtist (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account of death

[edit]

The article reads:

Kanaʻina angrily approached Cook, who reacted by striking the chief with the broad (flat) side of his sword. Kanaʻina jumped at Cook and grabbed him. Some accounts state that Kanaʻina did not intend to hit Cook while other descriptions say the chief deliberately struck the navigator across the head with his leiomano. Either way, Kanaʻina pushed Cook, who fell to the sand. As Cook attempted to get up, Nuaa lunged at him and fatally stabbed him in the chest with a metal dagger, obtained by trade from Cook's ship during the same visit. Cook fell with his face in the water. This caused a violent, close-quarters melee between the Hawaiians and Cook's men.

This is nonsense. First of all, there are many conflicting accounts because the whole affair from start to finish lasted about 10 minutes and was confusing and most observers were either far away or fighting for their lives. Nowhere does our article recognize this basic fact: conflicting accounts in a confusing melee. Secondly, this version as told above is not sourced to the Harvard University Press book as is cited, it does not verify. There is also a cite to Ledyard's book, but that is a primary source, probably not entirely reliable, and one of many journals published. Thirdly, this version of events is clearly suspicious, it has two great leaders going at it one-against-one (dramatic!), with Kanaʻina as much an aggressor as Cook. It makes Cook look less in the wrong by turning Kanaʻina into an "angry" and violent man. C'mon, he was old, small, somewhat frail, and very smart, his handlers would not have allowed him to risk injury or death to engage in direct personal conflict. The first blow against Cook almost surely was not by Kanaʻina, but one of the dozens of strapping warriors defending their god king - who was probably already whisked away before any blow landed on Cook. And Cook took multiple hits, from stones to the head, stabs to the body, by multiple weapons, including one made from swordfish, while his head was held under water. This business of a single Spanish blade is more nonsense for dramatic effect.

The best account I have read is Hampton Sides most recent biography of Cook. It's chapter length, detailed and reliable. I'll try to summarize here at some point if I can. -- GreenC 23:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism

[edit]
Cook’s heart was eaten by the four most powerful Hawaiian chiefs

This is certainly a sensitive topic to suggest the Hawaiians were cannibalistic, in any way, a point they rejected then, and now. The Australian Museum piece is terse, unattributed. Removing for now. -- GreenC 01:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival changed to Arrival in Hawaiian islands

[edit]

Hello all

I have given this section a more meaningful heading. I have expanded this section to give more relevant background to Cook's death. I have reduced the reliance on primary sources, in particular Ledyard, which is only one of at least a dozen accounts by members of Cook's expedition. I have also replaced some old and unscholarly sources (such as Lonely Planet guides and 19th century secondary sources) which more recent scholarship on Cook. This is consistent with policy policy which states that articles should be based on reliable secondary sources and those on historical subjects should be based on recent scholarship: WP:PSTS, WP:SOURCE. I have particularly relied on Salmond (2004), Thomas (2003) and The Captain Cook Encyclopaedia (2004). I have moved some content to a more logical place.

Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Hello all

I have added a sources section listing the main sources used. I will progressively add short footnotes (harvp) for the citations which are used most often.

Happy to discuss, especially if there is a preference for another short citation style. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Kealakekua Bay

[edit]

I have added more content on the increasing tensions which culminated in Cook's death. I have changed the heading to the more meaningful "Return to Kealakekua Bay" and put the new content under a new sub-heading. I have changed the sub-heading "Attempt to take the aliʻi nui hostage" to the "Attempt to take Kalaniʻōpuʻu hostage" for greater clarity.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to take Kalaniʻōpuʻu hostage

[edit]

Hello all

I have rewritten this based on recent scholarship. The previous version was based on primary sources, popular biographies and other non-scholarly sources. Where scholarly sources were cited they often did not support the content. As this is a substantial rewrite I would be happy to discuss any concerns other editors might have. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Affray on beach and Cook's death

[edit]

Hello all

Once again, I have rewritten this based on recent scholarship. The previous version was largely based on primary sources, popular biographies and other non-scholarly sources. Where scholarly sources were cited they often did not support the content. There are at least a dozen accounts of Cook's death written by his crew and they differ on many details. There are just as many accounts based on oral histories and they differ just as much. Rather than providing our own version of events based on one or two primary sources, we need to rely on scholarly secondary sources. As these also differ on some details, I have tried to strip out most of the contested detail and provided a summary of events which is consistent with the narratives given by the majority of scholarly secondary sources. As this is another substantial rewrite I would be happy to discuss any concerns other editors might have. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

I have added a section on the aftermath of Cook's death. it is mostly based on James Cook, please see that article for attribution. I have added some detail and made some corrections.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Hello all

I have rewritten the lead so it is an actual summary of the article. This is in accordance with policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hello all,

In the info box I have replaced the image of Cook's two ships in Tahiti (because it isn't relevant) to an image of Cook's death (which is relevant). I have tried to move the other images to more appropriate places but my technical abilities aren't good and I am happened by a very intrusive drop down box listing all the articles about the the history of Hawaii. If anyone has the technical expertise to fix this I would be grateful.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "Hawaii History" template (box). Noleander (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction

[edit]

Hello all

I have added a new section on the reaction to Cook's death in Europe and Hawaii.

Happy to discuss Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvements to article

[edit]

@Noleander @ThoughtIdRetired You are both probably in need of a break from Cook by now, but if you get a chance I would be grateful if you could run your eye over this article because I intend to submit it for review for GA status in the near future. Any suggestions for improvements would be most welcome. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. I'll get to it tomorrow. Noleander (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]

I'll use this GA review checklist as an aid, even tho this is not a real GA review:

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • Overall, the article is in great shape ... it could probably sail thru GA without much additional work. Some of my suggestions below are for FA criteria, I'll note those when they occur.
  • Citations: look good and clean.
  • A footnote ends without a period: ...Cook's orders.Williams (2008), pp. 36–37 The absence of a period in the cites is fine, but here in the Footnotes, consider a period so all the footnotes end in periods.
Fixed Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • False title - consider changing phrases like Academic Nicholas Thomas ... to The academic Nicholas Thomas .... It doesn't bother me, but some FA reviewers may object. This is an FA issue, not a GA issue. The WP MOS is silent on the question.
Fixed Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have four author-links, which is good. Consider adding more, if availalbe (e.g. Anne Salmond). This is an FA issue, not a GA issue.
Done Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: some ISBNs have hyphens, some do not. Consider making them all uniform. This is an FA issue, not a GA issue.
Done Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding (to body text) the fact that there are many paintings of Cook's death. The article has the link to Death of Cook, but maybe a sentence stating that it was - not really a genre - but a source of several paintings. I think sources say that.
Done Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead looks good: the first paragraph acts, as it should, as a "lead to the lead". Consider adding " hostage for its return" into the first paragraph so the first paragraph stands on its own. I.e. 1stg para should explain why cutter theft led to C kidnapping him)
Done Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding specific means of killing into the lead: stabbing/clubbing, etc. I know there is some uncertainty, but readers will consider that essential info, even if qualifiers are present.
Done Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title of "Reaction" section: is there a better title? "reaction" seems a bit narrow, considering the broad range of time & events in the section. "Aftermath" is possible, but is already used above. I don't have a particular suggestion.
I changed the sub-heading to "Burial at sea and completion of expedition" and the following major heading to "Aftermath". Thanks for picking that up. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider splitting paragraph Accounts differ over the confused events... into two smaller paragrs.
I added a sentence about the chief's son returning to shore when the shooting started and split the paragraph into three. I agree this is better than one long paragraph. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting paragraphs with dates: On 14 February 1779, ..., In January 1778, ..., On 2 February, , On 25 January, .. , On the morning of 14 February, ... . Nothing wrong with that, but some reviewers will want date-start-paragraphs spaced farther apart, to avoid any hint of WP:PROSELINE. This is an FA issue, not a GA issue.
I left it as it is for the moment because I think 8 of 27 paragraphs starting this way isn't excessive. I will change if it becomes an issue in the GA or FA review. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • He and his crew became the first known Europeans to encounter the Hawaiian Islands when... Readers unfamiliar with Hawaii may benefit from a couple of sentences that paint a picture of what the Hawaiian culture at that time: Approx population of the islands? When did they arrive in the islands? Was there one leader, or multiple leaders? Could Cook speak the Hawaiian language? What kind of weapons did they have? Of course, this is not an article on Hawaiian history, but a sentence or two might help readers get a picture in their mind.
Good suggestion. I added a link to History of Hawaii which explains most of this. I added that Cook and some crew had 10 years experience in Polynesian languages and cultures. None of the major sources on Cook give an overall population estimate for Hawaii, but I added that Kealakekua Bay was the most populous part of the island and that an estimated crowd of 10,000 (!) greeted Cook's expedition. The article already stated that 2-3,000 Hawaiians gathered at the final affray and I think these crowd estimates give a better idea of how the expedition was outnumbered than an overall population estimate would. (One thing the James Cook article doesn't convey is that all Cook's decisions on the use of violence were in a context where his expeditions were vastly outnumbered and vulnerable to attack. Even in Australia, the locals could have easily wiped out the landing party if they were so minded.) Hawaiian weapons (ie. spears, daggers, clubs, stones) are explained in the section on Conflict and Death. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: some have location (Sydney, London), some do not. FA criteria require all or none. This is an FA issue, not a GA issue.
Added location where required. My understanding is that University of Chicago Press, OUP etc. don't require a location. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" vs NavBox. The "See also" has three links; and those three links are also in the NavBox at the bottom of the article (namely Template:Captain James Cook ). I don't think WP guidelines (MOS:SEEALSO) prohibit that sort of duplication, so shouldn't impact the GA review.
I have removed all the duplicated Cook links from the See Also section but added History of Hawaii which seems the most useful link not elsewhere linked. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Map: Not required for GA, but consider adding
{{maplink|frame=yes|type=line|id=Q2879655|text=Site of Cook's death in Kealakekua Bay |zoom=14|type3=point|coord3={{coord|19.48124|N|155.93325|W}}|title3=Point|description3=Site of death |frame-coordinates={{coord|19.48134|N|155.93025|W}}}}
into the article will produce a map that may be useful to readers (shown below).
Map
Site of Cook's death in Kealakekua Bay
I'm not a map expert, but I know there are many ways to customize it (e.g. title, caption, points of interest, setting the initial zoom, overlay text, etc etc). Instructions are at Template:Maplink
Not done for now. I am hopeless at maps and wouldn't be able to make it look professional. Cook's team did a chart of Kealakekua Bay but it's hard to read the captions for the major features and the orientation is misleading. If this article is eventually submitted for FA I will look for a good public domain map. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. I have decided to leave all the Cook related links to the nav box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but at some point the Hawaiians learned that a chief named Kalimu had been shot on the other side of the bay, ... Was that chief actually shot? Or was that just a rumor? I can't remember.
Unfortunately, the rumour was true. Rickman killed the chief and part of the blame game after Cook's death involved various interested parties trying to shift the blame from Williamson to the marines to Rickman. Eventually they decided to blame Cook for his own death because dead men tell no tales. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British officers were puzzled by the reaction of the Hawaiians to Cook's death. Some had lamented Cook and had sworn to recover his remains, while others taunted the British. Hawaiians repeatedly asked the officers when Lono would return.. The time frame here is a bit muddy; the word "had" suggests that this analysis by the British was much later (e.g. a month after the killing); but then the phrasing switches back to Hawaiians repeatedly asked .. which suggests it was more immediate. It is not clear if Some had lamented Cook .. should be Some were lamenting Cook .... I don't know enough to say how it should be phrased: I'm simply pointing out that the wording makes it hard for the reader to know if the British are speaking during the day(s) immediately after the killing; or are thinking back retrospectively. Not a big deal.
I have tried to clear up the sequence of tenses. I wrote "had sworn to recover his remains" because Cook had already been buried at sea in the previous paragraph. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding a sentence or two to help the reader get a feel for the geography, since the "other side of the bay" is an important part of the ordeal. E.g. "Hikiau" is mentioned twice, without definition. Perhaps 1 or 2 sentences near the beginning that establish that there was a wide bay; and there were two landing spots, on each side of the bay, and the crews were landing & doing stuff at both spots.
Done. I have added a footnote with basic geographic information. I have further explained the position of Ka'awaloa at the northern end of the bay and Hikiau at the southern end of the bay at the appropriate parts of the narrative. I have also explained that Ka'awaloa was the main village for the chiefs and that Hikiau was where the priests of Lono had their main settlement. I have added that they were about 1.4 km apart. There was one British camp on shore near Hikiau and in the shrine itself. It included an observatory and a workshop for repairing stuff. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations p vs pp:
    • Williams (2008), p. 101-106
    • Salmond (2004), p. 426-428
Fixed. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed and very helpful feedback. All your changes look good and I will implement them over the next couple of days. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]