Talk:HMS Endeavour: Difference between revisions

Barque?

Should the correct spelling be "Barque"?

Both spellings are correct, and several links already pointed to "Bark." --the Epopt

I think the more common spelling is "barque". The article Barque refers to a US registered example the Falls of Clyde as a "barque". The US coast guard themselves refer to their own U.S. Coast Guard Barque Eagle [1]. Having said all that, HMS Endeavour does seem to be more commonly described as a "bark". - Ian ≡ talk 02:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The English use of the French form of the word is relatively late and clearly refers to the partially fore and aft rig. It appears to have been used to distinguish the rig from the miscellaneous small vessels, at the time when the rig was beginning to be used on larger ships. The problem was that 'ship' was a rig as well as a size of vessel. Hitherto, the ship rig had gone with the bigger, decked vessel but things changed and it became necessary to express the distinctions clearly. The Oxford English Dictionary's earliest secure reference to the use of 'bark' in connection with the rig is from 1769 but this will have also have been a relatively small vessel. There is however, a 1693 reference to a barkenteen though the rig is not described.

The word's eighteenth century and earlier use by the Admiralty was a continuation of the very early meaning of the word as a large boat, particularly one for carrying goods - a barge. I think a barca is the sort of boat which takes goods around Venice, for example; but una barca a remi is an Italian rowing boat. Barge and bark are really the same word but again, they have been separated as a distinction became necessary.

The answer to the question is: in the case of Endeavour - no. (RJP 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC))

An apparently reliable reference (already cited in the article) An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand explains, "She was renamed Endeavour and registered as a bark, that is, a vessel without a figurehead and a straight stem. She was not a barque. In fact, she was square-rigged on all three masts though she also had a spanker sail." If in fact as it appears there are several uses of "Bark" and "Barque" with different meanings, should the link to the Barque article from the word "Bark" be modified? Is there need for a disambiguation page of some sort? (sdsds - talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Information Relating to Whitby

Whitby also has had the replica of the HM Bark Endeavour visiting the town for lengthy periods. The article lacks information on this. Computerjoe's talk 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

K1 chronometer

I've removed the following para:

On this voyage Cook became the first captain to calculate his longitudinal position with accuracy. He used a chronometer, known as K1, which was made by Larcum Kendall and was a copy of John Harrison's fourth timepiece. Cook's log was full of praise for the watch and the charts of the southern Pacific Ocean he made with its use were remarkably accurate - so much so that copies of them were still in use in the mid 20th century.

Cook's trial of Kendall's K1 chronometer was later, on his second voyage, in the Resolution, not the Endeavour.[2]. --cjllw | TALK 00:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical

In constuction and statistics, it has a link in "the then earl" that doesnt make much sense. also, shouldnt the link be in the italics before that?

-- Will James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.19.196 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased, thanks. Hesperian 10:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Red Ensign

I have changed the modern White Ensign in the infobox for the Red Ensign of 1707 to 1801. Some readers might assume that the Red Ensign denotes a merchant ship and the White a naval vessel but it seems that that usage only dates from 1864 and that the Red Ensign shown is the one in use at the time of Cooke's voyage. On the other hand please comment if you think that the flag used by today's Royal Navy is the correct one to use. Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlap with other articles

Much of the information about Cooke's first voyage of Discovery is duplicated elswhere and so perhaps doesn't really belong, in so much detail, in an article focussed on the ship herself. Equally the info about the search for the wreck of the Endeavour and the other Newport wrecks may merit an article of its own if there isn't one already. What do you think. Petecarney (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As a first step in this direction I have added {{main|First voyage of James Cook}} to the appropriate section. Are there others like this that could be added? (sdsds - talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Per the above user, I've been requested to explain why the tags are on this article. In this order,

• It needs additional references or sources for verification.
• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
• It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources.
• Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
• It reads like a personal reflection or essay.
• It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
• It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. The tags are not to be removed until these issues have been satisfied and they are absolutely not to be removed because they are aesthetically displeasing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That list gives no further explanation of your concerns than the tag itself. Please explain in more detail, giving specific examples of statements you don't like. -- Avenue (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please make (judicious) use of {{fact}} tags in this article. Choose several assertions you particularly wish to challenge. Place tags immediately following those assertions. Wait awhile, and then if no reliable source is cited for the assertion, remove the assertion along with the tag. Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, makes clear this is a high priority effort for this (or any) article. (sdsds - talk) 22:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Every statement in this article needs a source. Currently, only about 5% of this article is sourced. Large sections concerning Endeavour's voyage with Cook are completely unsourced. These sections read like a personal narrative written for an essay. Some of the references are dead (the link to the National Maritime Museum of Australia, for instance). Most of the other references are either immaterial or entirely irrelevant. Citing a biography for Dr. Solander to prove he was on the ship doesn't seem as important, say, as citing Endeavour's length, beam, sail and armament. Beyond that, it needs serious copyedit work and it needs to have its narrative tone rewritten in the expository to make it encyclopedic. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, "any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged" should be reliably sourced. Please don't be gentle! If you see unsourced material and you doubt its veracity, be WP:BOLD and remove it. Maybe no one will restore it, in which case you may have improved the encyclopedia by removing untrue material. If some other editor does restore it, the obligation to provide a source citation lies clearly with that editor. (sdsds - talk) 23:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now peeked at User talk:Cumulus Clouds, and notice that others have already mentioned to you the essay at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'm sorry if my comments above thus seem to you like dull repetition of material you've already covered! (sdsds - talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and I happen to think that's a very stupid essay. I'll wait and see if anybody has any questions first before I start taking this one apart. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawke's views of civilian commanders

I have removed the following sentence - Hawke may well have had in mind a recent case of Dr Halley who was given such a commission and the sailors refused to recognise his authority. because:

• It appears to be original research - I cannot find any reliable source indicating Hawke was thinking of Edmond Halley when he refused Dalrymple's command. Its equally possible it was simply naval suspicion of non-military personnel, or a reflection on the contemporary difficulties experienced by the Spanish Navy in using landsmen as both crew and officers on many vessels.
• The Halley matter was seventy years earlier in 1698 - two decades before Hawke was even born. Halley's vessel was small and of little naval consequence, and the problem was subsequently addressed by commissioning Halley as a captain and sending him back to sea. This is hardly a matter of such import that it would shape naval decision-making so long afterward.

Obviously if anyone has a source explaining Hawke's thinking by all means re-add the sentence with the reference. As always, other comments and views are also welcome. Euryalus (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre as I think it for the reasons listed above, Kerr's 1824 account of this decision [3] clearly states hawke was influenced by Halley's difficulties. I've readded the sentence with the appropriate reference. Euryalus (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Scurvy" section?

The section headed "scurvy" in the article is interesting but not relevant to the subject of this article (the actual vessel HM Bark Endeavour). You cannot write about the Endeavour without including material on Cook, but that material must surely be about Cook in relation to the vessel, rather than general practices by Cook aboard all his voyages or a discussion of Cook's crew management technique. As an example of what I'm talking about, the HMS Victory article includes a long section on Horatio Nelson but only in the context of the use of the ship, not his personal theories or behaviour.

The "Scurvy" material is probably better located at either James Cook or First voyage of James Cook. I'd move it there directly but wanted to check with others as it involves the removal of a sizeable chunk of this article's text.

Anyone else have a view? Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed, for the reason stated. Melburnian (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Hesperian 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I've moved the relevant bits to First voyage of James Cook, where it remains largely unsourced but at least in the right place. Despite improvements from a number of editors, this ACOTF is now actually shorter than when it was tagged. Euryalus (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

But it has already gone from 13 citations up to around 40, which is great! --Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Construction date

Sources differ over when the vessel was built - the UK Maritime Museum says she was built in January 1767 butthe NZ Encyclopedia says she was three and a half years old in March 1768, giving her a construction date of June 1764.

Both are reliable sources but on balance I think the Maritime Museum has it wrong - the 1764 date is supported by various other sources [4][5][6] so I've retained it in the article. Anecdotally, this earlier construction date would also fit better with the obvious decrepitude of the vessel after 1775, though any collier dragged all around the world and wrecked on a coral reef would be forgiven for showing serious wear.

We could also include both dates and note in the article that sources differ, but where all sources point to one date and only one points to the other, and the issue at hand is a number rather than a body of text, it may be a simple transcription error rather than a genuine disagreement.

Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Replica photo?

There's a decent picture of what appears to be the Endeavour replica here, under attribution license on flickr. No time to upload it right now, and that's probably better left to somebody who's 100% sure it's the right boat. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature section

I have removed the following from the article, and wanted to explain why:

The Endeavour is known to history as HMS Endeavour or HM Bark Endeavour although the prefix HMS did not come into use until the very end of the 1780s and the abbreviation HM was not used in formal communications.

In Cook's published narrative of the Endeavour voyage he mostly uses "His Britannick Majesty's Bark" and only rarely "His Britannick Majesty's Ship".

In the same way that ancient custom mandates the title of Captain for a ranked Lieutenant while commanding a ship, all Royal Navy vessels are customarily referred to as HMS even though they may have a different rating on the Admiralty's ship lists.

Thus "Captain Cook of HMS Endeavour" is a correct customary usage for both the man and the ship while "Lieutenant Cook of HM Bark the Endeavour" exhibits the correct technical register of the language used in correspondence between the Admiralty and its officers. Another popular contemporary usage is to refer to "Captain Cook of HM Bark Endeavour", which is a combination of both the customary and the technical.

The content is technically correct but is neither unique to the Endeavour nor directly related to it. The customary use of "HMS" in Royal Navy vessel names is appropriately discussed at Royal Navy and at Rating system of the Royal Navy - all such ships were technically "HM bark (or sloop or bomb escort) Smithville" as well as customarily "HMS Smithville", and there is no need to specifically denote this in each individual ship article. The same is true of Cook's rank as Lieutenant but the customary use of the title Captain - true but not relevant to this page.

Secondly, the section is unsourced and to a degree, unsourceable. No doubt we could go through Cook's journals and count the number of uses of "ship" v "bark" but its not clear what that would prove, especially as the section also makes the unsourced claim that the term HMS was probably not in use at the time.

Essentially, general information like this is best placed at the broad-brush Navy articles like those listed above.

That's a longwinded explanation, and I'm happy to discuss if there's opposition to the deletion. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus, I agree with the removal. It bothered me also and you've managed to explain the issue well. Moondyne 03:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)