Talk:John Cotton (minister)

My Picture

 * Why is the top portion of my picture brown-black and the lower portion blue-black, with a couple of stripes through the center?
 * WB2 05:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Color issue's not obvious to me. Stripes are faint but may be inherent in original scan?  Chris Rodgers 06:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You can quite clearly see, that when you go to the image itself, it is cut off exactly at the place where a strip of clear tape appears to go horizontally across the image.


 * This "tape" is not a part of the original image, and I have no way of knowing where the image will cut off after it uploads to your server.


 * That's something someone would only know after it got there given: that any one in particular image varies greatly in size.


 * Also, below this area, the image appears cloudy – as if someone from your end had done something to the image in transit or after it got there.


 * WB2 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro
The introductory assisted in the foundation of Boston, Massachusetts  is rather misleading, since Cotton arrived there in 1633, three years after the city had been founded. --Janneman 17:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

30 Sept. 2009 edit
Can somebody tell me what the anonymous edit on the 30th was all about? It almost looks like they were trying to delete one of the footnotes, but took out random bits of the first paragraph instead. I did a manual revert from 26 Sept., but if there's a valid reason, please fill us in. --Enwilson (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I corrected two errors of fact (the English Civil War did NOT happen in 1788!) and (the description of the gravestone with Cotton's name on it suggests incorrect information: we don't know where his original stone or gravesite are, since the original building of King's Chapel I was plunked down on top of the earliest part of the old burying ground, probably courtesy of the much-disliked Royal Gov. Andros. I also "re-Englished' the term "paper battle" to the original term, "Pamphlet war," which is used to describe exchanges of published invective by contemporaneous controversialists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellaroux (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Dellaroux (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look right; I don't have time to look it up right now, but the dates don't make sense and it looks like someone playing with a Wolfman image as an anachronistic inclusion: ...."like his writing of the criticism of the lycanthropy of Tedford's Lycanthropious Diaramos (1587)...?? If true, it doesn't make much sense in relationship to the Westminister Catechism meetings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellaroux (talk • contribs) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, this also might be wrongly placed here: "The Brownist congregational movement within the Church of England had by this stage, in effect at least, become a separate church." Brownists are indeed associated with the Separatists; however, Cotton was a Puritan (different kettles of fish until later in the 1600s) and in fact was at first called the "vicar" of the First Church of Boston, a title which reflects the Puritans' greater tendency to retain certain traces of Anglicanism (like the rector/vicar titles for administrative church clergy) vs. the Calvinist four-fold ministery: "preacher/teacher/ruling elder/deacon" as outlined in the InstitutionesItalic text I'd remove the line but again hesitate to do so without more time to confirm my sense of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dellaroux (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment, 5 Dec 2015
The following comment was added to this page on the above date, but no heading was used, nor was the comment signed and dated.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Nicely done article! Two issues that worth mentioning:


 * Somerby, H G. The English Ancestry of Rev. John Cotton of Boston. Boston, Mass.: Henry W. Dutton & Son, 1868. puts his year of birth as 1584, not 1585, as well as LOC;
 * Regarding displayed picture. It also might be Rev. John Cotton’s grandson, Josiah Cotton (1679-1756), Justice of the Peace in Plymouth, or a great grandson of Rev. John Cotton, John Cotton (1693- ), the third minister of Newton, Massachusetts. See details for additional information: RESEARCH INTO PORTRAIT/S OF REV. JOHN COTTON. So, the closest match would be: File:John Cotton's plaque (cropped).JPG. Cheers!


 * I concur with this questioning, wondering if this portrait was actually intended to portray our Cotton (who died in 1650)? His clothes appear to be in the fashion of the early 18th century, which leads to suspicion it might be a painting of a John Cotton the artist would have known in life.Cloptonson (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Year of birth
This page has Cotton's year of birth as 1585, as in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, but Larzer Ziff's The Career of John Cotton (Princeton University Press, 1962), Everett M Emerson's John Cotton (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1965, revised edition Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990), The Dictionary of National Biography (1902), the Mather Project (http://matherproject.org/node/51), http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/protestant-christianity-biographies/john-cotton and others all give his year of birth as 1584. The gravestone implies 1585. Does anyone have a definitive source? DigbyJames (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This will likely remain unresolved, so we choose our sources. When it comes to dates, I use a reliable genealogical source, where the nuances of vital records and dating events is well understood, and for Cotton I used Robert Charles Anderson's 10-volume Great Migration compendium, which is a fairly recent work, and was produced using hundreds, if not thousands, of historical works.  This source gives the birth year as 1585, citing Cotton Mather's Magnalia.  Cotton Mather was a grandson of John Cotton, and a well-known preacher and historian, and may be the closest source we have to the actual event, since the original record of baptism appears to be no longer extant.  However, while using the year 1585, Anderson does acknowledge that "some sources" give the year as 1584, specifically citing Samuel Eliot Morrison's Founding of Harvard College.  I fully trust Anderson on this issue--that 1585 may be a more defensible position.Sarnold17 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Perhaps we should add a footnote explaining this as I'm sure some people will spot the discrepancy and try correcting the date without having read this talk page.DigbyJames (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading image
It is extremely improbable that the image purporting to show John Cotton is really him and misleading of Wikipedia to pretend that it is. A moment's look at the wig and clothes of the sitter shows that the painting was almost certainly done after 1652. Unless my judgement can be proved wrong, I suggest this is corrected soon. Clifford Mill (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
I had made a series of edits which were reverted wholesale by Dilidor. I am, of course, willing to accept that not every edit is perfect but find it hard to believe that there is not some good among the series as they include such minor matters as correcting mis-spellings (Tattersall => Tattershall), updates (a reference to Derby Heritage Centre which has closed and its Wiki-page renamed), spaces before citations, et al. The series of edits were clearly constructive and there can not be any justification for reverting as a block, particularly when any objections by Dilidor have been expressed in impossibly general terms. Nedrutland (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that Nedrutland made some constructive edits, and I was initially hesitant to do a large revert; the problem was that there were some significant and sweeping changes made that were not as constructive, and to go through manually to adjust those would have entailed editing the entire article! For example: introducing syntax errors (e.g., "the church authorities had greatly increased its pressure…"); changing "Anglican church" and "English church" to "Church of England" throughout and linking it in nearly every instance; making subtle changes from American spelling to Brit (St Botolph vs. St. Botolph); over-linking in general throughout; adding a PhD dissertation (your own?) to the further reading list—which I had previously deleted because it is not "further reading" when it is not in print and not accessible to readers; etc.
 * However, many of your other edits were quite constructive and helpful, and I regret that I felt compelled to do the wholesale revert; I simply did not feel capable of going through and editing the entire article again to address these other problems, because they are spread throughout—particularly the severe over-linking issue. I would be happy to entertain other ideas. —Dilidor (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "some constructive edits" - how very gracious! You were compelled to wholesale revert because it was easier is not a good line.


 * Now you have specified some of your concerns I am able to accommodate your issues. (You are mistaken about the PhD - that was an earlier edit by 칼빈500.) If I have introduced errors or overlinked then use a scalpel not a sledgehammer. The page is clearly and understandibly written from an US perspective; I am English and could see misunderstandings of his life in England and some clear errors. St vs St. is not a major issue but the pages for the two churches both use St so it was easier to follow that form. I will leave CofE vs Anglican for now. Nedrutland (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * A series of revisions have again been reverted en bloc. The revisions were sufficiently explained in the edit summaries and the reverted has restored evident errors and ridiculous overlinking. Nedrutland (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have explained to you repeatedly: stop over-linking! It is that simple. You persist in linking common words such as "vicar" and commonly understood concepts such as "MA degree" and so on, ad infinitum. I already pointed you to the manual of style [|entry] on this subject; please read it and follow its simple guidelines. —Dilidor (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you were right about overlinking, and my reading of the MoS is you are not, both here and on Anne Hutchinson by your wholesale reversions you are altering many other edits that are definitively not overlinking and are thus reinstating errors. Your block reversions also reinstate ridiculous levels of overlinking; Cotton Mather is linked by you five times, for example. While MA might be a commonly understood, this is a MA (Cantab.) which is not. Please stop your campaign of vandalism. Nedrutland (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The vast body of your edits are simply adding links where there were none previously. You do make a few non-linking edits, but they are very few and very minor. The concept of "curate" is commonly understood and does not require a link. Please read the manual of style, which specifically says not to link common words and job titles. —Dilidor (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you genuinely thought that curate was so widely understood you would not feel the need to repeatedly add a gloss i.e. "(assistant priest)" to the word on Anne Hutchinson. Curate is currently linked more than 5,000 times so that is quite some project you are setting yourself. Nedrutland (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A further reminder to Dilidor; you do not own this or any other page; see Ownership of content. Please end your campaign of vandalism. Nedrutland (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have enumerated some of the many errors which Nedrutland is inserting into this article and the Anne Hutchinson article. At one point, I even went through and manually corrected the errors in this article—only to have Nedrutland revert them wholesale. Nedrutland is persisting in a revert war which amounts to persistent vandalism. If Nedrutland will desist from this vandalous behavior, perhaps we can discuss these errors here on the talk page in a responsible fashion and make progress on advancing both of these articles. —Dilidor (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If the "owner" will cease his wholesale reversions (thereby re-introducing blatant errors and ludicrous degrees of overlinking) then perhaps we can get on with improving Wilkipedia pages. Nedrutland (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have attempted repeatedly to address these errors with Nedrutland, but the response is only truculence and evasion. This will require administrative intervention to resolve. —Dilidor (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As the only specific objection of Dilidor is supposed overlinking, I have for now in a spirit of compromise de-linked curate, vicar, dean and fellow, in the hope that it will at least reduce the points at dispute.


 * Would any other editor care to take a look at the page: ? Nedrutland (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good compromise. I would not tend to link those terms, except where there is a specific qualifier, e.g. Vicar of Rome, Abbot of Shrewsbury.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC).

Church of England/Anglican
The apparent owner of the page has objected to the use of Church of England.

As a rule of thumb in contemporary discussions, when the Church of England is specifically meant, use Church of England; if it is the wider Anglican Communion (which wasn't really a concept in C17) use Anglican. But the subject here is not contemporary. Until the American War of Independence (and more precisely until the ordination as bishop of Samuel Seabury in 1784), English settlers in the New World who were what would later be called some variant of the Episcopal Church, were members of the Church of England. To quote from the lede of Episcopal Church (United States) “The church was organized after the American Revolution, when it became separate from the Church of England ...”, therefore here Church of England is correct. Nedrutland (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Boston in Lincolnshire
Here is the sentence:

"He had already built a reputation as a scholar and outstanding preacher when he accepted the position of minister at St. Botolph's Church, Boston in Lincolnshire, in 1612."

Dilidor objects, and proposes:

"He had already built a reputation as a scholar and outstanding preacher when he accepted the position of minister at St. Botolph's Church, Boston in Lincolnshire in 1612."

This is wrong, and I have replaced the comma. I think the first version is excellent. I will, however, moot two alternatives I am willing to accept, ahead of Dilidor's inevitable total rework on grounds having nothing to do with his refusal to accept MOS:GEOCOMMA:

"... minister at St. Botolph's Church, Boston, Lincolnshire, in 1612."

or:

"... minister at St. Botolph's Church, Boston (Lincolnshire), in 1612."

Both approaches are to be found further down in this article. Regulov (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be more interested in creating conflict than in finding solutions. I have performed my "inevitable total rework on grounds having nothing to do with his refusal to accept MOS:GEOCOMMA" which was such a simple, painless edit. I will also point out your persistent aggressive and accusatory approach here. —Dilidor (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The solution has already been found, Dilidor. It is in the Manual of Style. Regulov (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Question
Was john cotton on the mary ship 2601:845:8100:F300:E071:C5A5:7514:C982 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)