This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cotton Mather 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why was the content added about Mather and Slavery deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcommeyras ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A word I used -- "expunged"-- was replaced by an editor who called it "slanted". The editor seems to have no talk page so I would like to discuss here.
REPUTATION-- the editor who culled "expunged" used this word in the new edit, and it seems to me to be a common signifier word found in 20th c Mather revision. Indeed, some 20th c. scholars seem to be obsessed with CM's REPUTATION. A private individual minding their own business certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to REPUTATION, but in discussing the period of a province where hundreds were imprisoned and 20 executed and nearly everyone in fear of being accused, a scholar's concern for the REPUTATION of any of the most powerful leaders presiding during this episode does demonstrates a bias.
DEFENSE-- Another signifier word used heavily in 20th c.-- i.e. CM's Wonders is a "DEFENSE" of the trials. Stacy Schiff calls it "propaganda" and that word seems more accurate when looking at CM's frank personal correspondence in 1692 -- Aug 4, Sept 2, Oct 20-- as well as close reading the book itself with a critical eye. But the important point is that the words DEFENSE and PROPAGANDA both express a particular viewpoint.
A DIVINE -- this word sounds, well, divine. It demonstrates bias. (Often found near to the biased and difficult to define "EMINENT".) "Clergy" or "Clergyman" seems less biased. A "theocrat" would seem an accurate term when we notice how influential the clergy were at this time but it does have a perjorative ring to it.
STORM -- 1692 was strange and some aspects will never be explained but it was not a hurricane or a weather event. It was human run and operated, begun and ended. (And note there were no lynchings. The proceedings were orderly, by law, in court.) There is a lineage of thought and influence that can be traced. Motives can be explored, including the evangelical and the counter-enlightenment. The arguments that served to end or prevent such a thing re-occurring can be discussed. Also note, CM first used this term STORM when trying to expunge his own record a few years later in Life of Phips. Naively recycling CM's own self-interested arguments does not make for good scholarship.
OUTBREAK -- similar to STORM, and popular in 20th c. this word removes culpability by making the episode sound like a virus, like ebola. In contrast notice the more reasoned and rational word "DELUSION" preferred by scholars as early as the 18th c. and thru the 19th c. (SG. Drake's "Witchcraft Delusion" vols I-III is a reprint of Wonders and Robert Calef's book.)
WITCH-- A dehumanizing word when applied to an individual. Mid-20th c. Harvard historian SE Morison also used the term "wench". The more accurate term "accused" was preferred by Robert Calef, Samuel Willard, and many scholars thru 18th and 19th c. The fact that most of the individuals executed could have saved themselves via false confession would seems to demonstrate that they were likely the more principled and serious in their moral conviction. Having paid the ultimate price, but with most convictions vacated and fully pardoned within 20 years, they would now seem to deserve the benefit of the doubt and some gentler language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismr ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
(Someone's contribution on Sept 11, 2017 was treated as graffiti and removed, but are we really so certain Cotton Mather was not a "dinosaur wrestler"? Is it anti-Puritan to suggest he did not? Let us all agree that "in the plastick spirit" that reverend and eminent divine may have also taken on T. Rex.:-) Lewismr ( talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The Bercovitch quotation in the "Life and work" section seems opinionated, unnecessary, and unhelpful. It is, however, large and central to the section, thus disproportionately influential to anyone who comes to WP to understand this important historical figure. That person will walk away with an understanding all right--Mr. Bercovitch's. It seems finding something good to say about the personage would be a much better and more informative method in writing a biography.
Dynasteria ( talk) 19:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Having read through the current text of this article, I think that it's clear that something is seriously wrong. The vast majority of the article is concerned with the Salem Witch Trials, and it descends there into great detail about conflicting views by subsequent historians on Mather's role in those trials. This completely overwhelms the narrative, and may not even be strictly neutral in the way that it characterizes the more positive modern evaluations as belonging to a revisionist " Kittredge lineage". Much of this discussion is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, difficult for a lay reader to follow, and verges at certain points on original research.
Moreover, the body of the article says absolutely nothing about Mather's political career, such as his leadership in the 1689 Boston revolt, his unsuccessful attempt to follow his father as president of Harvard, his conflicts with governor Joseph Dudley, or his support for the new Yale College. Major modern secondary sources, such as Kenneth Silverman's 1985 biography (which won the Pulitzer Prize for biography and the Bancroft Prize in American history!) aren't used at all. Besides the Salem Witch Trials (with which, according to mainstream modern scholars like Silverman, Mather was only tangentially involved), the only other aspect of Mather's career that this article really covers is his work on smallpox inoculation.
I think it's clear that the article needs a thorough re-write. A discussion of Mather's political career has to be included, and the treatment of the Salem Witch Trials needs to be shortened and substantially re-written. - Eb.hoop2 ( talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
While it is important to keep in mind policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, also be careful to avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring. If you cannot reach a consensus for edits to the article on this talk page, then consult the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for appropriate steps to involve other editors in a discussion. I do not have any axe to grind here; this article is on my watchlist solely because I added a link to the article I started on William Douglas (physician). I do not anticipate being able to devote editing time to this article in the near future, but I will be watching for adherence to the above policies and guidelines. - Donald Albury 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why there is no mention of Mather's second and third wives - Elizabeth Hubbard and Lydia Lee Mather - and aside from the children with his first wife, no other children are mentioned.
I will likely start the article about Lydia Lee Mather, who was married to him from 1715 until his death in 1734. There seem to be differing opinions about her character and mental health - protective mother and caring wife - or insane woman. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc
Is there a particular reason why information about his two other wives and children have been left out of the article.?
Thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Literally everything about his personal life is wrong. Read his diaries and see that he was married to Abigail with eight children and she died from smallpox in 1703. His next wife Elizabeth and three of their children died from measles in 1713. 2601:1C2:0:8E40:8C68:E3D8:8F41:E89 ( talk) 23:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The image commonly reputed to be Rev. John Cotton (1585-1652) of Boston is incorrect. The periwig and clothing alone prove a much later sitter, likely instead to be his great-grandson Rev. John Cotton (1693–1757) of Newton, MA. Pikiwedia3000 ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cotton Mather 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why was the content added about Mather and Slavery deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcommeyras ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
A word I used -- "expunged"-- was replaced by an editor who called it "slanted". The editor seems to have no talk page so I would like to discuss here.
REPUTATION-- the editor who culled "expunged" used this word in the new edit, and it seems to me to be a common signifier word found in 20th c Mather revision. Indeed, some 20th c. scholars seem to be obsessed with CM's REPUTATION. A private individual minding their own business certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt with regard to REPUTATION, but in discussing the period of a province where hundreds were imprisoned and 20 executed and nearly everyone in fear of being accused, a scholar's concern for the REPUTATION of any of the most powerful leaders presiding during this episode does demonstrates a bias.
DEFENSE-- Another signifier word used heavily in 20th c.-- i.e. CM's Wonders is a "DEFENSE" of the trials. Stacy Schiff calls it "propaganda" and that word seems more accurate when looking at CM's frank personal correspondence in 1692 -- Aug 4, Sept 2, Oct 20-- as well as close reading the book itself with a critical eye. But the important point is that the words DEFENSE and PROPAGANDA both express a particular viewpoint.
A DIVINE -- this word sounds, well, divine. It demonstrates bias. (Often found near to the biased and difficult to define "EMINENT".) "Clergy" or "Clergyman" seems less biased. A "theocrat" would seem an accurate term when we notice how influential the clergy were at this time but it does have a perjorative ring to it.
STORM -- 1692 was strange and some aspects will never be explained but it was not a hurricane or a weather event. It was human run and operated, begun and ended. (And note there were no lynchings. The proceedings were orderly, by law, in court.) There is a lineage of thought and influence that can be traced. Motives can be explored, including the evangelical and the counter-enlightenment. The arguments that served to end or prevent such a thing re-occurring can be discussed. Also note, CM first used this term STORM when trying to expunge his own record a few years later in Life of Phips. Naively recycling CM's own self-interested arguments does not make for good scholarship.
OUTBREAK -- similar to STORM, and popular in 20th c. this word removes culpability by making the episode sound like a virus, like ebola. In contrast notice the more reasoned and rational word "DELUSION" preferred by scholars as early as the 18th c. and thru the 19th c. (SG. Drake's "Witchcraft Delusion" vols I-III is a reprint of Wonders and Robert Calef's book.)
WITCH-- A dehumanizing word when applied to an individual. Mid-20th c. Harvard historian SE Morison also used the term "wench". The more accurate term "accused" was preferred by Robert Calef, Samuel Willard, and many scholars thru 18th and 19th c. The fact that most of the individuals executed could have saved themselves via false confession would seems to demonstrate that they were likely the more principled and serious in their moral conviction. Having paid the ultimate price, but with most convictions vacated and fully pardoned within 20 years, they would now seem to deserve the benefit of the doubt and some gentler language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewismr ( talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
(Someone's contribution on Sept 11, 2017 was treated as graffiti and removed, but are we really so certain Cotton Mather was not a "dinosaur wrestler"? Is it anti-Puritan to suggest he did not? Let us all agree that "in the plastick spirit" that reverend and eminent divine may have also taken on T. Rex.:-) Lewismr ( talk) 20:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The Bercovitch quotation in the "Life and work" section seems opinionated, unnecessary, and unhelpful. It is, however, large and central to the section, thus disproportionately influential to anyone who comes to WP to understand this important historical figure. That person will walk away with an understanding all right--Mr. Bercovitch's. It seems finding something good to say about the personage would be a much better and more informative method in writing a biography.
Dynasteria ( talk) 19:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Having read through the current text of this article, I think that it's clear that something is seriously wrong. The vast majority of the article is concerned with the Salem Witch Trials, and it descends there into great detail about conflicting views by subsequent historians on Mather's role in those trials. This completely overwhelms the narrative, and may not even be strictly neutral in the way that it characterizes the more positive modern evaluations as belonging to a revisionist " Kittredge lineage". Much of this discussion is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, difficult for a lay reader to follow, and verges at certain points on original research.
Moreover, the body of the article says absolutely nothing about Mather's political career, such as his leadership in the 1689 Boston revolt, his unsuccessful attempt to follow his father as president of Harvard, his conflicts with governor Joseph Dudley, or his support for the new Yale College. Major modern secondary sources, such as Kenneth Silverman's 1985 biography (which won the Pulitzer Prize for biography and the Bancroft Prize in American history!) aren't used at all. Besides the Salem Witch Trials (with which, according to mainstream modern scholars like Silverman, Mather was only tangentially involved), the only other aspect of Mather's career that this article really covers is his work on smallpox inoculation.
I think it's clear that the article needs a thorough re-write. A discussion of Mather's political career has to be included, and the treatment of the Salem Witch Trials needs to be shortened and substantially re-written. - Eb.hoop2 ( talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
While it is important to keep in mind policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, also be careful to avoid Wikipedia:Edit warring. If you cannot reach a consensus for edits to the article on this talk page, then consult the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for appropriate steps to involve other editors in a discussion. I do not have any axe to grind here; this article is on my watchlist solely because I added a link to the article I started on William Douglas (physician). I do not anticipate being able to devote editing time to this article in the near future, but I will be watching for adherence to the above policies and guidelines. - Donald Albury 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I am a little confused as to why there is no mention of Mather's second and third wives - Elizabeth Hubbard and Lydia Lee Mather - and aside from the children with his first wife, no other children are mentioned.
I will likely start the article about Lydia Lee Mather, who was married to him from 1715 until his death in 1734. There seem to be differing opinions about her character and mental health - protective mother and caring wife - or insane woman. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc
Is there a particular reason why information about his two other wives and children have been left out of the article.?
Thanks!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Literally everything about his personal life is wrong. Read his diaries and see that he was married to Abigail with eight children and she died from smallpox in 1703. His next wife Elizabeth and three of their children died from measles in 1713. 2601:1C2:0:8E40:8C68:E3D8:8F41:E89 ( talk) 23:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The image commonly reputed to be Rev. John Cotton (1585-1652) of Boston is incorrect. The periwig and clothing alone prove a much later sitter, likely instead to be his great-grandson Rev. John Cotton (1693–1757) of Newton, MA. Pikiwedia3000 ( talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)