Article milestones Date Process Result November 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 23, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Not approved September 23, 2011 Peer review Reviewed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 14, 2009, February 14, 2012, February 14, 2015, February 14, 2016, February 14, 2017, February 14, 2019, February 14, 2021, February 14, 2024, and February 14, 2025.

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). New Zealand Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Queensland / Military history / Exploration Top‑importance James Cook is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the History of exploration task force (assessed as Top-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Yorkshire High‑importance James Cook is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Maritime / South Pacific / British / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Maritime warfare task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Additional information: /  This article has failed an A-Class review. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Oceania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Oceania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceaniaWikipedia:WikiProject OceaniaTemplate:WikiProject OceaniaOceania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Maps Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The long held belief that Captain Cook’s son James, died without issue has in 2024 been disputed in a new book. ^[1]. 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) ^[2][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]