Talk:Death of James Cook

untitled

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)

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

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)

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)

I agree 178.250.98.188 (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. ‘Death’ would be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GardenGlobetrotter (talk • contribs) 19:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction with Hawaii

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)

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)

• I have changed the details to reflect what is started elsewhere in the article. It is utterly inappropriate only to list the non-Hawaiian casualties. Geopersona (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 15 January 2021

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)

---

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))

• Support the current title, apart from requiring Attempted kidnapping of Kalaniʻōpuʻu by James Cook is an absolutely daft title for an article on the Death of James Cook. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Battle of Kealakekua Bay

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)

---

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

aaah ok. should that still be edited to another word? 808Poiboy (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

Who is Josh Allen?

"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)

Account of death

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)

Cannibalism

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)