| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Endeavour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | HMS Endeavour is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| This 
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
.svg)
_by_Matthew_Flinders.jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
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)
- What about HMB Endeavour rather than HMS Endeavour?
Wimbledon32 (
talk) 02:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- This was debated at length under Talk:HMS Endeavour#Article name. -- Beland ( talk) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- What about HMB Endeavour rather than HMS Endeavour?
Wimbledon32 (
talk) 02:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- The problem for the sailors in having a 'landsman' commanding was that they were in-effect putting their lives in his hands, hands that it would be difficult for any naval person or seaman to claim were qualified for such a voyage.
- That is why on such expeditions while a scientist may be in overall nominal command, a qualified Master or naval equivalent will be the 'Captain' responsible for the safety of the ship and ship's complement. When it comes to running the ship his word over-rides anyone else's.
- Even today going to sea can be dangerous. You don't want to go to sea with a 'fool' or 'idiot' in command who might get you killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 ( talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Me too.
Hesperian 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources differ over when the vessel was built - the UK Maritime Museum says she was built in January 1767 but the 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)
PortCities London, referred to above as "the UK Maritime Museum" is not a reliable source, in fact it's rubbish. As an example, it gives the following statistics:
- · Weight: 400 tonnes (397 tons)
- · Carried a compliment[sic] of 107: Captain and crew
Firstly the use of the word "weight" should ring alarm bells. Presumably this is intended to mean displacement.
The single most authoritative published source must be C. Knight's 1933 article in the Mariner's Mirror which transcribes original documents. Knight gives the burthen (which is nothing to do with displacement) of 368 71/94 tons and the age at purchase of three years nine months so this is likely the source for the 1966 NZ Encyclopedia article.
The Project Gutenberg transcription of Captain Cook's Journal has a table entitled "PERSONS WHO LEFT ENGLAND IN H.M.S. ENDEAVOUR, 26TH AUGUST, 1768", which lists 72 crew (including Cook), 12 marines and 11 civilians, a total of 95.
There are similar howlers in PortCities article on the Bounty. PortCities is ultimately a publication of the National Maritime Museum but it should not regarded in the same category as scholarly publications from that source.
Cheers -- Petecarney ( talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
There is now a Wikipedia Commons photograph of this Whitby Endeavour "replica" linked to the Whitby page. The boat is a (coastal) sea-going 40% scale "replica" intended for tourism purposes equiped with safety very much in mind and can be made out in Whitby harbour on Wikimapia. (I reckon the photo was taken from the very end of Whitby outer west pier as the boat was entering the outer harbour) Stuffed cat ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the seventies (presumably for the 250th year celebrations) there was a (not too convincing) one tonne model of the Endeavour in a large atrium inside the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough, suspended at the height of a small child and very very slowly rotating by a pivot in the atrium roof above. I believe this model has been relocated a few miles south in the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum in Stewart Park, Middlesbrough. (this needs confirming) Stuffed cat ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- As a reader who knows nothing about British ship naming conventions, it seemed to me like the title of the article was an error if the ship was officially called HM Bark Endeavour. I think the article definitely needs more explanation. I understand the concern about verbosity, so I added back a shortened version, and put it in a footnote rather than the main text. If this could be accomplished with a link to an explanation for all ships in a similar situation, that would be even less verbose, though I couldn't find a good link target. (And it wouldn't help printed-on-paper Wikipedia readers who couldn't click through to read it.) -- Beland ( talk) 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following good-faith addition to the article and wanted to explain why:
- All of the commercially available models, and all of the current replica vessels, have this oddly shortened mizzen as all have been constructed using this potentially incorrect annotation.
Firstly, in the absence of sources it appears to be original research. Secondly its plainly inaccurate, as I doubt all commercial "Endeavour" models include this erroneous mizzen-mast length. I think this removal is uncontroversial and wouldn'thave raised it here except that it does make an interesting point - is there any evidence the mizzen mast notation misconception has persisted in modern times? If so, that would make an interesting addition to the page. Euryalus ( talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The book Wind beneath my wings is used in the article to reference the replica Endeavour departing on its final ocean journey from Whitehaven rather than Plymouth, but the IP that added the reference hasn't included a page number.
If anyone has a copy of this book, could they please add the page number for this statement to reference 70 in the article? Alternatively, if the book doesn't actually state the Endeavour left from Whitehaven (I've not read this anywhere else), please feel free to remove the reference entirely. Euryalus ( talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
At Whitby there is a 40% scale steel frame Endeavour 'replica' named the Bark Endeavour Whitby built after the very successful visit of the 'real' replica. It is intended for the tourist trade offering coastal excursions to tourists and is operated with safety in mind.
During the 1970s (during some Cook centennial celebration???) a one tonne model of the Endeavour was housed in a large atrium in the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough. The model was suspended by wires from the very high ceiling, slowly rotating about four or five feet above the floor while the occasional small boy would walk under it. Long ago it was removed and replaced by even more retail shops. Where it is now I don't know. This sounds a bit surreal as though I dreamt it, but I am sure this all happened. Slap me if it didn't. Stuffed cat ( talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed it did, and you didn't dream up the giant snowman either. Melburnian ( talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Russell Museum's website their one-fifth scale replica was built in 1969 and sailed in harbors of Australia and New Zealand before being donated to the museum in 1970. Yet the Wikipedia page makes an unsourced claim that it sailed 24 000 kilometers (over halfway around the globe) during that same time period. I find it unlikely, especially when it doesn't look very seaworthy. I've edited the page to match the information provided by the museum. -- Aginwald ( talk) 14:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion over article name -- HM Bark Endeavour or HMS Endeavour.
|
|---|
|
There's various opinions about the correct name for the article, and a consensus seems needed one way or the other. All opinions are welcome on any of the following:
On balance I'd prefer option 3. It meets the naming convention and appears to have a consensus of support from other editors. Option 1 is my least preferred, as it doesn't meet the convention and is not the most common name for the article subject - most texts refer to this ship simply as HMS Endeavour, not Bark Endeavour. Option 1 therefore breaches both WP:NAME and WP:SHIPNAME, and was not supported by any contributor to the naming discussion wikilinked above. Other views are welcome, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus ( talk • contribs)
ApologiesApologies - I had not looked at the discussion here before I moved the article (I will try to be more careful in future). However, while we are on the subject, I believe accuracy should be the main issue in an encyclopedia, and "HM Bark Endeavour" is the name the ship was given and how it is referred to in the early journals. Calling it HMS Endeavour is rather similar to the common referral to James Cook as "Captain James Cook" on his first voyage when, in fact, he was really Lieutenant James Cook at that time. Both these loose usages are to some degree misleading and I think something is lost when people resort to them. It is easy enough to retain accuracy while preventing confusion by using redirects and disambiguation pages. John Hill ( talk) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The name HM Bark Endeavour, and why it should be used hereI am getting a bit tired of this argument and fear that it is getting nasty for no reason. I notice today that User:Sanpiper refers to the proper, accepted name of this vessel as a "perverse departure from standard", and as a "non recognised name instead of the standard one." S/he also says: "I doubt anyone except experts would call it the bark endeavour." Well, s/he should take a trip here to Cooktown, Queensland, a town proud of its history and where Cook spent some 7 weeks, and ask a few of the residents whether it is O.K. to change the name of HM Bark Endeavour to "HMS Endeavour" and, I feel sure, s/he will be treated to an earful of history. Many locals feel quite strongly about this issue. Now, let's get this straight - no one is suggesting that the vessel should be referred to as "the bark endeavour" - the real name of the vessel (a refitted collier) - the standard one, the one the British Admiralty named it, the one used in the journals of Cook, Banks and Parkinson, and the one used in almost all histories and other books that mention it, is "HM Bark Endeavour", or the "Endeavour", for short. The modern replica, commissioned in 1994 also proudly carries the name "HM Bark Endeavour". This is the proper name, this is the standard name, and it helps distinguish it from the many ships which were actually named "HMS Endeavour" (the Wikipedia disambiguation page lists 9 of them). If some people are not aware of its true name, perhaps it is time they learned it - it is not that difficult. If they don't know the proper name of the vessel, and type "HMS Endeavour" into Wikipedia's search engine, they will reach a disambiguation page where they can find the proper name (and perhaps learn something). I object to pandering to the lowest common denominator by sacrificing historical accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Yours, John Hill ( talk) 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In reply to Users Euryalus' and Frickeg's notesUser Euryalus says the "onus is on supporters of "HM Bark Endeavour" to demonstrate consensus for changing it (that is, from "HMS Endeavour"). User Frickeg seems to be of the opinion the use of "HMS Endeavour" is the accepted modern usage. I don't know how we can determine which title is most used today - as both seem to be quite common. In truth, it is often referred to under either title, and probably a case can be made that either is technically correct, though the full, official and proper name was clearly "H.M. Bark Endeavour". I quote here from the introduction to "CAPTAIN COOK'S JOURNAL DURING HIS FIRST VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD MADE IN H.M. BARK "ENDEAVOUR" 1768-71 A Literal Transcription of the Original MSS. WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION EDITED BY CAPTAIN W.J.L. WHARTON, R.N., F.R.S." published in 1893, and available for free download online at Project Gutenberg:
Also, the letter of commission given to Cook on 25th May, 1768 begins: "Whereas we have appointed you First Lieutenant of His Majesty's Bark, the Endeavour, now at Deptford, and intend that you shall command her during her present intended voyage; and, whereas, we have ordered the said Bark to be fitted out . . . ." It is true that it is sometimes referred to (rather loosely) as "HMS Endeavour" - which is technically not incorrect, as it was, indeed, one of "His Majesty's" ships. It is also frequently referred to as just "the Endeavour". However, my contention is that we should use not use a nickname for the title of an article, but rather the correct name and have redirects for the nicknames "HMS Endeavour", and "the Endeavour". Looking at the relevant books I happen to have here on my self I find:
Or, perhaps readers might like to check out the Australian National Museum's article on the "HMB Endeavour Replica" at: [7] (I should add here that the modern replica proudly carries the title of HM Bark Endeavour and has been sailing to ports around the world for some years educating people about Cook's voyages and their importance and that all these many thousands of people would have been exposed to the true name of the vessel - not HMS Endeavour). This will be my final comment on the subject: Why should we use a nickname instead of the real one - especially as there will be no difficulty in anyone finding the article who searches using either of the common nicknames? Over to the rest of you out there with an interest, Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets have a detailed look at the time period this vessel was sailing there were a number vessels sailing that can be referred to as HMS Endeavour this vessel was distinguished by the name H.M Bark Endeavour the second is H.M Cutter Endeavour National Archives of UK additionally there was a sloop(1765-1780), in 1775 the year HM Bark Endeavour was sold there was a vessel commisioned call the HM Scooner Endeavour. I recognise that the name HMS Endeavour has been used to describe the HM Bark Endeavour by many writers / historians in the last 200 years, and is equally in terms of usage but the reality is that there are sufficient reliable sources and significantly the official name uses HM Bark Endeavour along with alternative vessels from the same period that are HMS Endeavour that the we should be using the name HM Bark Endeavour. Gnan garra 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Moving it backI'm with Moondyne on this: though I'd prefer HM Bark, I see here an absence of consensus for the move. I reckon policy says we ought to move it back to the stable title. And, more importantly, Euryalus has put a hell of a lot of effort into this article, and it offends my sense of an Aussie 'fair go' for him to be presented with a fait accompli like this. I'll give you mob 12 hours to make your closing arguments, and unless consensus for the move suddenly emerges, I'll move it back. Hesperian
What the Naming Conventions actually sayThe Naming Conventions say:
The Naming Conventions for Ships says:
Can anyone tell me whether the Ship Naming conventions should overrule the General Naming Conventions? My view would be no, and that HM Bark fits the general criteria better. All ships of the navy were "His Majesty's Ship" and so can be referred to as HMS. Some were also commissioned with differrent titles, eg. HM Armed Schooner Diana so it is a matter of choice, dependant on context, whether to use the commissioned title or the common-language title. We make a similar choice in referring to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Cook. Both are valid. Wharton's 1893 edition of "Captain Cook's Journal During the First Voyage Round the World" avalable from Project Gutenberg makes reference to Endeavour both as HM Bark and as H.M.S. My point is that both HMS and HM Bark are historically accurate and whichever one is chosen for the article title the first sentence should reflect that fact. It is embarrassing that the Australian Maritime Museum should choose to use the apparently fictional prefix HMB. They own the Endeavour replica so they can call that ship whatever they like but using HMB to refer to the historical ship as they do seems absurd. Perhaps some mention of this should be made in the article. Petecarney ( talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
I've been mildly bold and begun the tortuous process of reducing the clutter in the references section by creating a Bibliography for books and the RIMAP report (so far), then converting the references that link to them into the traditional format of author name, date, page number per WP:CITESHORT. This is per the suggestion by Brad here.
It's a work in progress but I thought I'd save an interim version to avoid edit conflicts. If anyone opposes the format change let me know. Euryalus ( talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Decluttering" done - I left the web and news citations as is, and I haven't used the Harvard system as it wasn't the one the article started with. Disagreements, proposals to change it back welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion for those involved in editing this article: [1] contains useful information which may help resolve a number of issues and add detail. Southforelandlighthouse ( talk) 12:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ A P McGowan. Captain Cook's Ships Mariner's Mirror 65 1979 p 109 ff
There's an apparent difference between otherwise reliable sources over the purchase price of Earl of Pembroke by the Admiralty:
- 2840 pounds: - stated in Hough (Captain James Cook: a biography), Blainey (Sea of Dangers) and the Captain Cook Society [8]; vs
- 2307 pounds - Hosty and Hundley (the RIMAP report), the Young Endeavour scheme [9] and the Encyclopedia of New Zealand [10]
There's also Portcitieslondon, which supports both 2800 pounds [11] and 2307 pounds [12], and therefore disqualifies itself as a particularly reliable source on this issue.
I've noted both in the article, eacvh with one reference though more exist on either side. I suspect the difference relates to the amount allocated by Admiralty, and the amount actually paid - the RIMAP wording, for example, refers to a decision to purchase for 2307 pounds, while Hough notes an actual purchase for 2840. But thats just a personal opinion - views, comments welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From
C. Knight, extracted in snippets from Google books:
- Valuation by Deptford dockyard : £2307 5s 6d,
- Agreed price: £2800,
- Total paid inc. interest due to delayed final payment: £2840. 10s. 11d.
Petecarney ( talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aha! It's nice to have a mystery solved :) Thanks for finding that - can you update the article if you have a moment? Alternatively I can do it based on the googlebooks snippet, though if you have a hard copy of the Mariner's Mirror edition you'll have better citation details than I will. Euryalus ( talk) 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have access to a hardcopy. The full paragraph about the purchase (from two snippets) is:
- The purchase price is recorded in the Navy Treasurer's
ledger under the date of October 31st, 1769, as follows: To
Thomas Milner1 £2840. l0s. 11d. By Bill dated 24th June
1768 for the value of the Earl of Pembroke now called the
Endeavour, bark, Burthen 368 71/94 tons, together with her
masts and yards on the day above said £2800. Interest on
£1000, part thereof from 9th October 1768 to 13th October
1769 being 370 days at 4% per annum £40. 10s. 11d
= £2840. 10s. 11d.
Cheers, Petecarney ( talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just reversed some changes made recently where it was claimed the Endeavour only spent two weeks at the mouth of the Endeavour River for repairs. I have just corrected this to 7 weeks and given a reference. The ship sailed into the mouth of the Endeavour River and was beached on 18 June, 1770 and it sailed again on 4th August. I haven't time to find them now but these dates are clearly recorded in Cook's journal. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, my mistake. I added the "seven weeks" because I remembered it from the Log, then thought I'd add up the days to make sure. Bizarrely, I added the 13 days of June to the 4 days of August and came up with two weeks instead. Good thing John has this watchlisted. :) Euryalus ( talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about a fragment of the Endeavour being flown on the shuttle Endeavour in 1996, as I am myself the primary source - I was personally responsible for the acquisition of the fragment and its delivery to NASA. I have never written about this event before, and though it was covered in the Sydney press at the time, it has never been represented in an online format, and it predates online press. I do not have in my possession any of the press coverage made at the time. Astronaut Andy Thomas referred to it verbally during the mission, but this is impossible to verify online as neither the entire mission in video format or mission transcripts have been published. I do own hard copy correspondence between myself and Dr Thomas, but this is again primary source (and personal correspondence is of itself not material that I should be obliged to publish); as are photographs of the artefact, myself and Dr Thomas on his return from his mission and a plaque from NASA awarded to me in expression of appreciation for my participation in STS-77.
The paragraph in question reads as:
| “ | A five centimetre (two inch) fragment of the stock band from the abandoned bower anchor was flown on board OV-105 Space Shuttle Endeavour on mission STS-77 in May 1996. Australian-born Mission Specialist Andy Thomas requested the fragment to fly on his mission with him. Along with the fragment flew medallions, curated in Sydney, Australia by the Powerhouse Museum, originally made in England in the late 18th century using clay collected from Botany Bay during Cook's expedition there. For four months in late 1996, the returned fragment was exhibited at the Powerhouse Museum alongside a fragment of the Space Shuttle Endeavour and a piece of the heatshield from Apollo 15 command module CM-112 Endeavour (which had been named after the HMB Endeavour), briefly bringing three historical Endeavours together. The flown stock band fragment is now on display in the James Cook Museum in Cooktown, the fragments of the two Endeavour spacecraft returned to their private collection. | ” |
It is therefore impossible (without me setting up a website somewhere and telling the story, which frankly would bear as much veracity as the above paragraph, at the end of the day) to verify this story against other online sources. There is simply nothing to cite. Removing this paragraph simply removes the principle source of this information. What is the recourse? The paragraph's removal was frankly unwarranted, even though there is an insistence on reference, as this is the only presence online of this information. What is primary information to do? Is Wiki to remain secondary only? Surfren ( talk) 06:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC) surfren
- Yes I am afraid so. Wikipedia is based on a number of key principles, one of which can be found in more detail at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Basically it does not matter for the project that something is true, it must also be verifiable by other users. The user in question acted correctly to revert the information, especially as this is a featured article and the highest standards of referencing must be adhered to. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new information or research, as we are a tertiary source. A solution might be to find the details of the papers which covered the story at the time. Many papers have online archives which can be searched, and which would give you references to support what you say. Benea ( talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Livestock on board included pigs, poultry, two greyhounds and a milking goat.
- Bleve the term livestock usually refers to domestic animals destined for milking, shearing or slaughter. Assume they didn't eat the greyhouds.
- Why then did they take dogs on a long voyage in a crowded ship — particularly, why a breed that wants room to run? Sca ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Belated comment - the greyhounds were pets of Joseph Banks. They didn't eat them, but in January 1769 Molyneux's journal makes clear there's only one of them left, so the other one must have died somewhere between Portsmouth and Rio. (ref Beaglehole 1968, p46). Agree re livestock, will shift the greyhounds out of the grouping. -- Euryalus ( talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Fothering and careening are linked to explanations, but neither process is complex and could be explained simply in the text. Also, it's not specified what was done on the east coast of Australia to repair the hull, although it's hinted at in the description of later repairs at Batavia. Sca ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Of possible note: Wreckage of Captain James Cook's ship Endeavour found, guardian.com. Needs fact-checking.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Endeavour. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
| Done. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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:
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) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
I belive someone needs to tell us how many flags were on the boat! Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
104.220.47.50 (
talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Endeavour flew two flags: a red ensign and a red, white or blue jack. Cook didn't hold flag rank and had no additional flag noting his presence. These flags were common to every similarly sized Royal Navy vessel at the time. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I read that the mast height cite the file whose name is ZAZ6595 from National Maritime Museum Greenwich Endeavour, but i find that the file is from different vessel.
This is the link https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86386.html. Did i read the wrong file? Agus Damanik ( talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The shorter mizzen mast height that is debated above is shown in the roughly contemporary painting that is in the article. To be clear, it is the lower mizzen mast that is thought to be unusually short. This is discussed by maritime historian David R MacGregor in Merchant Sailing Ships: Sovereignty of Sail 1775-1815. He suggests that the recorded lower mast height would give a mizzen topsail that is proportionately large - which is what we see in the painting. MacGregor also states that a sister ship of the Earl of Pembroke had the mizzen stepped on a block of wood that sat on top of the keelson - so offsetting a short height to some degree.
The article states "Late twentieth century research suggests the annotation may be a transcription error with "19 yards 29 inches" (18.1 m) being the true reading..." The reference for this is Marquardt - but it is not clear if he is reporting the opinion of a number of maritime historians or simply his own findings. If the latter, the article would certainly be misdirecting the reader on how widely it is accepted that there was a transcription error. On the face of it, we have MacGregor, who is known for meticulous detailed research on the design of sailing ships of all types, against Marquardt, whose primary interest is in model-making. What does the cited reference actually say on the matter? How does this match with the near contemporary painting? How likely is it that a clerk in the Admiralty dockyards would have made a mistake in recording lengths of spars - when that is what he did for a living? At present, I feel that the article reads as though Wikipedia thinks the historic record is a mistake - but possibly without good evidence that it is. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- FA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- FA-Class vital articles in History
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- FA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- FA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- FA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- FA-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- American Revolutionary War task force articles
- FA-Class Shipwreck articles
- High-importance Shipwreck articles
- FA-Class Australia articles
- High-importance Australia articles
- FA-Class Australian maritime history articles
- Top-importance Australian maritime history articles
- WikiProject Australian maritime history articles
- FA-Class Australian exploration articles
- Top-importance Australian exploration articles
- WikiProject Australian exploration articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- FA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- FA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- FA-Class Rhode Island articles
- Mid-importance Rhode Island articles
- WikiProject Rhode Island articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles
- FA-Class New Zealand articles
- Low-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HMS Endeavour article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| HMS Endeavour is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 29, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
- What about HMB Endeavour rather than HMS Endeavour?
Wimbledon32 (
talk) 02:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- This was debated at length under Talk:HMS Endeavour#Article name. -- Beland ( talk) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- What about HMB Endeavour rather than HMS Endeavour?
Wimbledon32 (
talk) 02:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- The problem for the sailors in having a 'landsman' commanding was that they were in-effect putting their lives in his hands, hands that it would be difficult for any naval person or seaman to claim were qualified for such a voyage.
- That is why on such expeditions while a scientist may be in overall nominal command, a qualified Master or naval equivalent will be the 'Captain' responsible for the safety of the ship and ship's complement. When it comes to running the ship his word over-rides anyone else's.
- Even today going to sea can be dangerous. You don't want to go to sea with a 'fool' or 'idiot' in command who might get you killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 ( talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Me too.
Hesperian 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources differ over when the vessel was built - the UK Maritime Museum says she was built in January 1767 but the 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)
PortCities London, referred to above as "the UK Maritime Museum" is not a reliable source, in fact it's rubbish. As an example, it gives the following statistics:
- · Weight: 400 tonnes (397 tons)
- · Carried a compliment[sic] of 107: Captain and crew
Firstly the use of the word "weight" should ring alarm bells. Presumably this is intended to mean displacement.
The single most authoritative published source must be C. Knight's 1933 article in the Mariner's Mirror which transcribes original documents. Knight gives the burthen (which is nothing to do with displacement) of 368 71/94 tons and the age at purchase of three years nine months so this is likely the source for the 1966 NZ Encyclopedia article.
The Project Gutenberg transcription of Captain Cook's Journal has a table entitled "PERSONS WHO LEFT ENGLAND IN H.M.S. ENDEAVOUR, 26TH AUGUST, 1768", which lists 72 crew (including Cook), 12 marines and 11 civilians, a total of 95.
There are similar howlers in PortCities article on the Bounty. PortCities is ultimately a publication of the National Maritime Museum but it should not regarded in the same category as scholarly publications from that source.
Cheers -- Petecarney ( talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
There is now a Wikipedia Commons photograph of this Whitby Endeavour "replica" linked to the Whitby page. The boat is a (coastal) sea-going 40% scale "replica" intended for tourism purposes equiped with safety very much in mind and can be made out in Whitby harbour on Wikimapia. (I reckon the photo was taken from the very end of Whitby outer west pier as the boat was entering the outer harbour) Stuffed cat ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In the seventies (presumably for the 250th year celebrations) there was a (not too convincing) one tonne model of the Endeavour in a large atrium inside the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough, suspended at the height of a small child and very very slowly rotating by a pivot in the atrium roof above. I believe this model has been relocated a few miles south in the Captain Cook Birthplace Museum in Stewart Park, Middlesbrough. (this needs confirming) Stuffed cat ( talk) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- As a reader who knows nothing about British ship naming conventions, it seemed to me like the title of the article was an error if the ship was officially called HM Bark Endeavour. I think the article definitely needs more explanation. I understand the concern about verbosity, so I added back a shortened version, and put it in a footnote rather than the main text. If this could be accomplished with a link to an explanation for all ships in a similar situation, that would be even less verbose, though I couldn't find a good link target. (And it wouldn't help printed-on-paper Wikipedia readers who couldn't click through to read it.) -- Beland ( talk) 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the following good-faith addition to the article and wanted to explain why:
- All of the commercially available models, and all of the current replica vessels, have this oddly shortened mizzen as all have been constructed using this potentially incorrect annotation.
Firstly, in the absence of sources it appears to be original research. Secondly its plainly inaccurate, as I doubt all commercial "Endeavour" models include this erroneous mizzen-mast length. I think this removal is uncontroversial and wouldn'thave raised it here except that it does make an interesting point - is there any evidence the mizzen mast notation misconception has persisted in modern times? If so, that would make an interesting addition to the page. Euryalus ( talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The book Wind beneath my wings is used in the article to reference the replica Endeavour departing on its final ocean journey from Whitehaven rather than Plymouth, but the IP that added the reference hasn't included a page number.
If anyone has a copy of this book, could they please add the page number for this statement to reference 70 in the article? Alternatively, if the book doesn't actually state the Endeavour left from Whitehaven (I've not read this anywhere else), please feel free to remove the reference entirely. Euryalus ( talk) 06:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
At Whitby there is a 40% scale steel frame Endeavour 'replica' named the Bark Endeavour Whitby built after the very successful visit of the 'real' replica. It is intended for the tourist trade offering coastal excursions to tourists and is operated with safety in mind.
During the 1970s (during some Cook centennial celebration???) a one tonne model of the Endeavour was housed in a large atrium in the Cleveland Centre shopping mall in central Middlesbrough. The model was suspended by wires from the very high ceiling, slowly rotating about four or five feet above the floor while the occasional small boy would walk under it. Long ago it was removed and replaced by even more retail shops. Where it is now I don't know. This sounds a bit surreal as though I dreamt it, but I am sure this all happened. Slap me if it didn't. Stuffed cat ( talk) 11:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed it did, and you didn't dream up the giant snowman either. Melburnian ( talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the Russell Museum's website their one-fifth scale replica was built in 1969 and sailed in harbors of Australia and New Zealand before being donated to the museum in 1970. Yet the Wikipedia page makes an unsourced claim that it sailed 24 000 kilometers (over halfway around the globe) during that same time period. I find it unlikely, especially when it doesn't look very seaworthy. I've edited the page to match the information provided by the museum. -- Aginwald ( talk) 14:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Extended discussion over article name -- HM Bark Endeavour or HMS Endeavour.
|
|---|
|
There's various opinions about the correct name for the article, and a consensus seems needed one way or the other. All opinions are welcome on any of the following:
On balance I'd prefer option 3. It meets the naming convention and appears to have a consensus of support from other editors. Option 1 is my least preferred, as it doesn't meet the convention and is not the most common name for the article subject - most texts refer to this ship simply as HMS Endeavour, not Bark Endeavour. Option 1 therefore breaches both WP:NAME and WP:SHIPNAME, and was not supported by any contributor to the naming discussion wikilinked above. Other views are welcome, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Euryalus ( talk • contribs)
ApologiesApologies - I had not looked at the discussion here before I moved the article (I will try to be more careful in future). However, while we are on the subject, I believe accuracy should be the main issue in an encyclopedia, and "HM Bark Endeavour" is the name the ship was given and how it is referred to in the early journals. Calling it HMS Endeavour is rather similar to the common referral to James Cook as "Captain James Cook" on his first voyage when, in fact, he was really Lieutenant James Cook at that time. Both these loose usages are to some degree misleading and I think something is lost when people resort to them. It is easy enough to retain accuracy while preventing confusion by using redirects and disambiguation pages. John Hill ( talk) 04:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The name HM Bark Endeavour, and why it should be used hereI am getting a bit tired of this argument and fear that it is getting nasty for no reason. I notice today that User:Sanpiper refers to the proper, accepted name of this vessel as a "perverse departure from standard", and as a "non recognised name instead of the standard one." S/he also says: "I doubt anyone except experts would call it the bark endeavour." Well, s/he should take a trip here to Cooktown, Queensland, a town proud of its history and where Cook spent some 7 weeks, and ask a few of the residents whether it is O.K. to change the name of HM Bark Endeavour to "HMS Endeavour" and, I feel sure, s/he will be treated to an earful of history. Many locals feel quite strongly about this issue. Now, let's get this straight - no one is suggesting that the vessel should be referred to as "the bark endeavour" - the real name of the vessel (a refitted collier) - the standard one, the one the British Admiralty named it, the one used in the journals of Cook, Banks and Parkinson, and the one used in almost all histories and other books that mention it, is "HM Bark Endeavour", or the "Endeavour", for short. The modern replica, commissioned in 1994 also proudly carries the name "HM Bark Endeavour". This is the proper name, this is the standard name, and it helps distinguish it from the many ships which were actually named "HMS Endeavour" (the Wikipedia disambiguation page lists 9 of them). If some people are not aware of its true name, perhaps it is time they learned it - it is not that difficult. If they don't know the proper name of the vessel, and type "HMS Endeavour" into Wikipedia's search engine, they will reach a disambiguation page where they can find the proper name (and perhaps learn something). I object to pandering to the lowest common denominator by sacrificing historical accuracy in Wikipedia articles. Yours, John Hill ( talk) 01:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In reply to Users Euryalus' and Frickeg's notesUser Euryalus says the "onus is on supporters of "HM Bark Endeavour" to demonstrate consensus for changing it (that is, from "HMS Endeavour"). User Frickeg seems to be of the opinion the use of "HMS Endeavour" is the accepted modern usage. I don't know how we can determine which title is most used today - as both seem to be quite common. In truth, it is often referred to under either title, and probably a case can be made that either is technically correct, though the full, official and proper name was clearly "H.M. Bark Endeavour". I quote here from the introduction to "CAPTAIN COOK'S JOURNAL DURING HIS FIRST VOYAGE ROUND THE WORLD MADE IN H.M. BARK "ENDEAVOUR" 1768-71 A Literal Transcription of the Original MSS. WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTION EDITED BY CAPTAIN W.J.L. WHARTON, R.N., F.R.S." published in 1893, and available for free download online at Project Gutenberg:
Also, the letter of commission given to Cook on 25th May, 1768 begins: "Whereas we have appointed you First Lieutenant of His Majesty's Bark, the Endeavour, now at Deptford, and intend that you shall command her during her present intended voyage; and, whereas, we have ordered the said Bark to be fitted out . . . ." It is true that it is sometimes referred to (rather loosely) as "HMS Endeavour" - which is technically not incorrect, as it was, indeed, one of "His Majesty's" ships. It is also frequently referred to as just "the Endeavour". However, my contention is that we should use not use a nickname for the title of an article, but rather the correct name and have redirects for the nicknames "HMS Endeavour", and "the Endeavour". Looking at the relevant books I happen to have here on my self I find:
Or, perhaps readers might like to check out the Australian National Museum's article on the "HMB Endeavour Replica" at: [7] (I should add here that the modern replica proudly carries the title of HM Bark Endeavour and has been sailing to ports around the world for some years educating people about Cook's voyages and their importance and that all these many thousands of people would have been exposed to the true name of the vessel - not HMS Endeavour). This will be my final comment on the subject: Why should we use a nickname instead of the real one - especially as there will be no difficulty in anyone finding the article who searches using either of the common nicknames? Over to the rest of you out there with an interest, Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Lets have a detailed look at the time period this vessel was sailing there were a number vessels sailing that can be referred to as HMS Endeavour this vessel was distinguished by the name H.M Bark Endeavour the second is H.M Cutter Endeavour National Archives of UK additionally there was a sloop(1765-1780), in 1775 the year HM Bark Endeavour was sold there was a vessel commisioned call the HM Scooner Endeavour. I recognise that the name HMS Endeavour has been used to describe the HM Bark Endeavour by many writers / historians in the last 200 years, and is equally in terms of usage but the reality is that there are sufficient reliable sources and significantly the official name uses HM Bark Endeavour along with alternative vessels from the same period that are HMS Endeavour that the we should be using the name HM Bark Endeavour. Gnan garra 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Moving it backI'm with Moondyne on this: though I'd prefer HM Bark, I see here an absence of consensus for the move. I reckon policy says we ought to move it back to the stable title. And, more importantly, Euryalus has put a hell of a lot of effort into this article, and it offends my sense of an Aussie 'fair go' for him to be presented with a fait accompli like this. I'll give you mob 12 hours to make your closing arguments, and unless consensus for the move suddenly emerges, I'll move it back. Hesperian
What the Naming Conventions actually sayThe Naming Conventions say:
The Naming Conventions for Ships says:
Can anyone tell me whether the Ship Naming conventions should overrule the General Naming Conventions? My view would be no, and that HM Bark fits the general criteria better. All ships of the navy were "His Majesty's Ship" and so can be referred to as HMS. Some were also commissioned with differrent titles, eg. HM Armed Schooner Diana so it is a matter of choice, dependant on context, whether to use the commissioned title or the common-language title. We make a similar choice in referring to Captain Cook or Lieutenant Cook. Both are valid. Wharton's 1893 edition of "Captain Cook's Journal During the First Voyage Round the World" avalable from Project Gutenberg makes reference to Endeavour both as HM Bark and as H.M.S. My point is that both HMS and HM Bark are historically accurate and whichever one is chosen for the article title the first sentence should reflect that fact. It is embarrassing that the Australian Maritime Museum should choose to use the apparently fictional prefix HMB. They own the Endeavour replica so they can call that ship whatever they like but using HMB to refer to the historical ship as they do seems absurd. Perhaps some mention of this should be made in the article. Petecarney ( talk) 13:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
|
I've been mildly bold and begun the tortuous process of reducing the clutter in the references section by creating a Bibliography for books and the RIMAP report (so far), then converting the references that link to them into the traditional format of author name, date, page number per WP:CITESHORT. This is per the suggestion by Brad here.
It's a work in progress but I thought I'd save an interim version to avoid edit conflicts. If anyone opposes the format change let me know. Euryalus ( talk) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- "Decluttering" done - I left the web and news citations as is, and I haven't used the Harvard system as it wasn't the one the article started with. Disagreements, proposals to change it back welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion for those involved in editing this article: [1] contains useful information which may help resolve a number of issues and add detail. Southforelandlighthouse ( talk) 12:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ A P McGowan. Captain Cook's Ships Mariner's Mirror 65 1979 p 109 ff
There's an apparent difference between otherwise reliable sources over the purchase price of Earl of Pembroke by the Admiralty:
- 2840 pounds: - stated in Hough (Captain James Cook: a biography), Blainey (Sea of Dangers) and the Captain Cook Society [8]; vs
- 2307 pounds - Hosty and Hundley (the RIMAP report), the Young Endeavour scheme [9] and the Encyclopedia of New Zealand [10]
There's also Portcitieslondon, which supports both 2800 pounds [11] and 2307 pounds [12], and therefore disqualifies itself as a particularly reliable source on this issue.
I've noted both in the article, eacvh with one reference though more exist on either side. I suspect the difference relates to the amount allocated by Admiralty, and the amount actually paid - the RIMAP wording, for example, refers to a decision to purchase for 2307 pounds, while Hough notes an actual purchase for 2840. But thats just a personal opinion - views, comments welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
From
C. Knight, extracted in snippets from Google books:
- Valuation by Deptford dockyard : £2307 5s 6d,
- Agreed price: £2800,
- Total paid inc. interest due to delayed final payment: £2840. 10s. 11d.
Petecarney ( talk) 11:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aha! It's nice to have a mystery solved :) Thanks for finding that - can you update the article if you have a moment? Alternatively I can do it based on the googlebooks snippet, though if you have a hard copy of the Mariner's Mirror edition you'll have better citation details than I will. Euryalus ( talk) 23:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have access to a hardcopy. The full paragraph about the purchase (from two snippets) is:
- The purchase price is recorded in the Navy Treasurer's
ledger under the date of October 31st, 1769, as follows: To
Thomas Milner1 £2840. l0s. 11d. By Bill dated 24th June
1768 for the value of the Earl of Pembroke now called the
Endeavour, bark, Burthen 368 71/94 tons, together with her
masts and yards on the day above said £2800. Interest on
£1000, part thereof from 9th October 1768 to 13th October
1769 being 370 days at 4% per annum £40. 10s. 11d
= £2840. 10s. 11d.
Cheers, Petecarney ( talk) 14:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just reversed some changes made recently where it was claimed the Endeavour only spent two weeks at the mouth of the Endeavour River for repairs. I have just corrected this to 7 weeks and given a reference. The ship sailed into the mouth of the Endeavour River and was beached on 18 June, 1770 and it sailed again on 4th August. I haven't time to find them now but these dates are clearly recorded in Cook's journal. Sincerely, John Hill ( talk) 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, my mistake. I added the "seven weeks" because I remembered it from the Log, then thought I'd add up the days to make sure. Bizarrely, I added the 13 days of June to the 4 days of August and came up with two weeks instead. Good thing John has this watchlisted. :) Euryalus ( talk) 10:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about a fragment of the Endeavour being flown on the shuttle Endeavour in 1996, as I am myself the primary source - I was personally responsible for the acquisition of the fragment and its delivery to NASA. I have never written about this event before, and though it was covered in the Sydney press at the time, it has never been represented in an online format, and it predates online press. I do not have in my possession any of the press coverage made at the time. Astronaut Andy Thomas referred to it verbally during the mission, but this is impossible to verify online as neither the entire mission in video format or mission transcripts have been published. I do own hard copy correspondence between myself and Dr Thomas, but this is again primary source (and personal correspondence is of itself not material that I should be obliged to publish); as are photographs of the artefact, myself and Dr Thomas on his return from his mission and a plaque from NASA awarded to me in expression of appreciation for my participation in STS-77.
The paragraph in question reads as:
| “ | A five centimetre (two inch) fragment of the stock band from the abandoned bower anchor was flown on board OV-105 Space Shuttle Endeavour on mission STS-77 in May 1996. Australian-born Mission Specialist Andy Thomas requested the fragment to fly on his mission with him. Along with the fragment flew medallions, curated in Sydney, Australia by the Powerhouse Museum, originally made in England in the late 18th century using clay collected from Botany Bay during Cook's expedition there. For four months in late 1996, the returned fragment was exhibited at the Powerhouse Museum alongside a fragment of the Space Shuttle Endeavour and a piece of the heatshield from Apollo 15 command module CM-112 Endeavour (which had been named after the HMB Endeavour), briefly bringing three historical Endeavours together. The flown stock band fragment is now on display in the James Cook Museum in Cooktown, the fragments of the two Endeavour spacecraft returned to their private collection. | ” |
It is therefore impossible (without me setting up a website somewhere and telling the story, which frankly would bear as much veracity as the above paragraph, at the end of the day) to verify this story against other online sources. There is simply nothing to cite. Removing this paragraph simply removes the principle source of this information. What is the recourse? The paragraph's removal was frankly unwarranted, even though there is an insistence on reference, as this is the only presence online of this information. What is primary information to do? Is Wiki to remain secondary only? Surfren ( talk) 06:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC) surfren
- Yes I am afraid so. Wikipedia is based on a number of key principles, one of which can be found in more detail at WP:VERIFIABILITY. Basically it does not matter for the project that something is true, it must also be verifiable by other users. The user in question acted correctly to revert the information, especially as this is a featured article and the highest standards of referencing must be adhered to. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new information or research, as we are a tertiary source. A solution might be to find the details of the papers which covered the story at the time. Many papers have online archives which can be searched, and which would give you references to support what you say. Benea ( talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Livestock on board included pigs, poultry, two greyhounds and a milking goat.
- Bleve the term livestock usually refers to domestic animals destined for milking, shearing or slaughter. Assume they didn't eat the greyhouds.
- Why then did they take dogs on a long voyage in a crowded ship — particularly, why a breed that wants room to run? Sca ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Belated comment - the greyhounds were pets of Joseph Banks. They didn't eat them, but in January 1769 Molyneux's journal makes clear there's only one of them left, so the other one must have died somewhere between Portsmouth and Rio. (ref Beaglehole 1968, p46). Agree re livestock, will shift the greyhounds out of the grouping. -- Euryalus ( talk) 21:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Fothering and careening are linked to explanations, but neither process is complex and could be explained simply in the text. Also, it's not specified what was done on the east coast of Australia to repair the hull, although it's hinted at in the description of later repairs at Batavia. Sca ( talk) 14:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Of possible note: Wreckage of Captain James Cook's ship Endeavour found, guardian.com. Needs fact-checking.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on HMS Endeavour. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anmm.gov.au/webdata/resources/oaiFiles/EndeavourRPT2000No2b2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
| Done. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Endeavour. 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:
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) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
I belive someone needs to tell us how many flags were on the boat! Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
104.220.47.50 (
talk) 22:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Endeavour flew two flags: a red ensign and a red, white or blue jack. Cook didn't hold flag rank and had no additional flag noting his presence. These flags were common to every similarly sized Royal Navy vessel at the time. -- Euryalus ( talk) 07:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I read that the mast height cite the file whose name is ZAZ6595 from National Maritime Museum Greenwich Endeavour, but i find that the file is from different vessel.
This is the link https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/86386.html. Did i read the wrong file? Agus Damanik ( talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The shorter mizzen mast height that is debated above is shown in the roughly contemporary painting that is in the article. To be clear, it is the lower mizzen mast that is thought to be unusually short. This is discussed by maritime historian David R MacGregor in Merchant Sailing Ships: Sovereignty of Sail 1775-1815. He suggests that the recorded lower mast height would give a mizzen topsail that is proportionately large - which is what we see in the painting. MacGregor also states that a sister ship of the Earl of Pembroke had the mizzen stepped on a block of wood that sat on top of the keelson - so offsetting a short height to some degree.
The article states "Late twentieth century research suggests the annotation may be a transcription error with "19 yards 29 inches" (18.1 m) being the true reading..." The reference for this is Marquardt - but it is not clear if he is reporting the opinion of a number of maritime historians or simply his own findings. If the latter, the article would certainly be misdirecting the reader on how widely it is accepted that there was a transcription error. On the face of it, we have MacGregor, who is known for meticulous detailed research on the design of sailing ships of all types, against Marquardt, whose primary interest is in model-making. What does the cited reference actually say on the matter? How does this match with the near contemporary painting? How likely is it that a clerk in the Admiralty dockyards would have made a mistake in recording lengths of spars - when that is what he did for a living? At present, I feel that the article reads as though Wikipedia thinks the historic record is a mistake - but possibly without good evidence that it is. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- FA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in History
- FA-Class vital articles in History
- Successful requests for military history A-Class review
- FA-Class military history articles
- FA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- FA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- FA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- FA-Class Early Modern warfare articles
- Early Modern warfare task force articles
- FA-Class American Revolutionary War articles
- American Revolutionary War task force articles
- FA-Class Shipwreck articles
- High-importance Shipwreck articles
- FA-Class Australia articles
- High-importance Australia articles
- FA-Class Australian maritime history articles
- Top-importance Australian maritime history articles
- WikiProject Australian maritime history articles
- FA-Class Australian exploration articles
- Top-importance Australian exploration articles
- WikiProject Australian exploration articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- FA-Class Ships articles
- All WikiProject Ships pages
- FA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- FA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- FA-Class Rhode Island articles
- Mid-importance Rhode Island articles
- WikiProject Rhode Island articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- FA-Class Yorkshire articles
- Low-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles
- FA-Class New Zealand articles
- Low-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles