Talk:First voyage of James Cook

message: "The First voyage of James Cook was the initial voyage of James Cook?" No kidding?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Have made it clear it was the first of his voyages to explore the Pacific. Dick G (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: With thanks to User:Roke who has added the table of place names, I would however ask if there is a better way to present the information? The article is a general précis of Cook's first voyage and, since many events and 'discoveries' were made on that expedition, the size and detail of the table seems at first cumbersome and secondly disproportionate to the value of the information. While I appreciate the endeavour (no pun intended), would it not be better to have the relevant data spun-off into a sub-page? Thoughts welcome. Dick G (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the place names are too great a proportion of this article, and don't cover the entire voyage. Spinning it off into Australian places named by James Cook would seem appropriate.-gadfium 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay fair enough, I have moved the table to the new title --Roke 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Place names

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on First voyage of James Cook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721065703/http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34 to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=34
*Added  tag to http://ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1376345?searchTerm=James+Cook
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706134055/http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf to http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822225411/http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=457 to http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=457
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: " what a bold claim that Margaret Cameron Ash makes that Cooks maps were wrong on purpose, they may well have been but in my research this isn't general accepted knowledge so should be removed "  MA Hons in archaeology undergrad in history and 10 years arch and history related work experience creating an exhibition on Cook for 250 celebrations   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.233.196 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 4.2 Foveaux Strait

message: Hello all
I have deleted some speculative material which I don't think are sufficiently factual; specifically: "Evidently, while the Endeavour was anchored in Botany Bay, Cook followed one of the ancient Aboriginal tracks that connect Botany Bay to Port Jackson, a distance of some ten kilometres, and saw the full extent of the deep, natural harbour. The Admiralty had ordered Cook to conceal strategically valuable discoveries, so he omitted the main Harbour from his journal and chart. Cook’s overland walk was first proposed in 2018 in the book Lying for the Admiralty: Captain Cook's Endeavour Voyage."
None of the primary sources mentions that Cook walked overland from Botany Bay to Port Jackson. This is pure speculation. Far from concealing Port Jackson, Cook named it in his journal entry for 6 May 1770 and noted that it appeared to provide safe anchorage.  If Arthur Phillip, in 1787, thought that Port Jackson contained islands, the most likely explanation is that he conflated Cook's descriptions of Port Jackson and Port Stephens.--Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Jackson 

message: Hello all
I have removed some material which I think is speculative, controversial, and not supported by the sources. I have replaced it with the generally accepted account. The deleted material is:
"He climbed the hill with three others, including Joseph Banks. On seeing a navigable passage, he signalled the good news down to the men on the ship, who cheered loudly.
Cook later wrote that he had claimed possession of the east coast when up on that hill, and named the place 'Possession Island'. However, the Admiralty's instructions[35] did not authorise Cook to annex New Holland (Australia) and therefore it is unlikely that any possession ceremony occurred that August. Importantly, Banks, who was standing beside Cook, does not mention any such episode or announcement in his journal.[36] Cook re-wrote his journal on his arrival in Batavia (Jakarta) when he was confronted with the news that the Frenchman, Louis Bougainville, had sailed across the Pacific the previous year.[37]
In his revised journal entry, Cook wrote that he had claimed the entire coastline that he had just explored as British territory."
There is abundant documentary evidence that Cook claimed possession of the east coast of New Holland on Possession Island on 22 August 1770 and this is the established view among professional historians. It seems odd to argue that Admiralty instructions prevented Cook from making a formal claim to the east coast on Possession Island but didn't prevent him from making a fake claim a few weeks later. Although Banks does not mention the possession claim in his journal it is mentioned in Cook's journal, the ship's log, James Matra's unauthorised account and in Banks's Grey Manuscript. Parkinson, who was on the Endeavour at the time, also reports that Cook raised a jack - that is, a British flag which is a sign of a claim of possession. I think a Wikipedia article on James Cook needs to rely on established facts rather than speculative theories. A good recent scholarly account of Cook's first voyage can be found in John Molony's Captain James Cook: Claiming the Great South Land. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possession Island 

message: Hello all
I have deleted this section because it is speculative rather than factual. The previous section "Australian Coast" is an accurate factual description of Cook's first sighting of the coast of New Holland. Specifically I have deleted:
"Bass Strait
Cook had studied the old Dutch maps before leaving England and was fairly sure that Abel Tasman had found in 1642 that his Van Diemen’s Land is an island separated from the continental mainland by what is now Bass Strait. A talented and diligent hydrographer, Cook quickly surmised the likelihood of a strait. The Admiralty had issued its usual verbal instructions to hide strategically important discoveries that could become security risks, such as off-shore islands from which operations could be mounted by a hostile power.
Consequently, in his journal Cook disguised his discovery with a riddle;[41] and on his chart he drew a curtain across the truncated channel by sketching a false coastline down to an invented Point Hicks.[42] Cook's cartographic fabrication worked and Tasmania's insularity was suppressed for three more decades."
There is no evidence that Cook discovered Bass Strait but hid his discovery. Cook's relevant journal entry for 19 April 1770 states that it is "doubtful whether they [ie Van Dieman's Land and New Holland] are one land or not." No document has been found indicating that the British Admiralty knew of the existence of a strait between Tasmania and the mainland before Bass's discovery in 1797. It is highly unlikely that the Admiralty would have let Phillip and Vancouver sail to Australia without telling them about Bass Strait if they knew about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aemilius Adolphin (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bass Strait 

message: I don't have time to do it now, but material from some ABC articles on indigenous accounts should be included:
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-29/captain-cook-landing-indigenous-people-first-words-contested/12195148] 
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-26/indigenous-oral-accounts-of-captain-cooks-arrival/12183584
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-18/captain-james-cook-first-sighting-of-endeavour-yuin-people/12151356
* https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-29/captain-james-cook-discover-indigenous-aboriginal-history/12192756
Adpete (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous accounts 

message: Hello all
I have expanded this section in order to better reflect the importance of this part of Cook's first voyage. I have also added sub-headings for clarity, and have added citations where these were lacking. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voyage of discovery 

message: Hello all
I have expanded this section in order to better reflect its importance, and have added sub-headings for clarity. I have also added citations where necessary. Happy to discuss. --Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: no mention of the first european death on the east coast ? he does have his own wiki page, but that's also an easy link to from here for further information Dave Rave (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forby