John Cotton (minister) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 13, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that criticisms made by
John Cotton (pictured) about the doctrine of
preparationism were a factor in the
Antinomian Controversy and
Anne Hutchinson's banishment from
Massachusetts in 1638? | ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 4, 2017. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 Institutiones'Italic 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, great job with this article! You've done incredible work expanding this from almost nothing to a fully fleshed-out and very engaging article. It is well-written and has great supporting images and sources, but the best part is the way you include lots of historical background information to make the article accessible to people (like me) who may not know much about this time period. I felt like even though I came into this article with very little prior knowledge I came away understanding not just Cotton but more about the period as a whole, and you did a fantastic job of putting Cotton's achievements into context and showing the effect he had. This article easily passes the GA criteria, and I commend the very thorough research that seems to have gone into this article. Below are my comments, mostly minor prose issues, for your consideration and further work on this article. Even if you choose to ignore all of the comments, though, this is still a fine example of a GA. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind, quick, and supportive GA review. I will get on your comments this weekend. Will also fix the ref issues brought up by Crisco.
Sarnold17 (
talk) 03:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 [ [1]] on this subject; please read it and follow its simple guidelines. — Dilidor ( talk) 13:03, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Was john cotton on the mary ship 2601:845:8100:F300:E071:C5A5:7514:C982 ( talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
John Cotton (minister) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 13, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that criticisms made by
John Cotton (pictured) about the doctrine of
preparationism were a factor in the
Antinomian Controversy and
Anne Hutchinson's banishment from
Massachusetts in 1638? | ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on December 4, 2017. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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 Institutiones'Italic 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cerebellum ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, great job with this article! You've done incredible work expanding this from almost nothing to a fully fleshed-out and very engaging article. It is well-written and has great supporting images and sources, but the best part is the way you include lots of historical background information to make the article accessible to people (like me) who may not know much about this time period. I felt like even though I came into this article with very little prior knowledge I came away understanding not just Cotton but more about the period as a whole, and you did a fantastic job of putting Cotton's achievements into context and showing the effect he had. This article easily passes the GA criteria, and I commend the very thorough research that seems to have gone into this article. Below are my comments, mostly minor prose issues, for your consideration and further work on this article. Even if you choose to ignore all of the comments, though, this is still a fine example of a GA. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 22:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the kind, quick, and supportive GA review. I will get on your comments this weekend. Will also fix the ref issues brought up by Crisco.
Sarnold17 (
talk) 03:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 [ [1]] on this subject; please read it and follow its simple guidelines. — Dilidor ( talk) 13:03, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Was john cotton on the mary ship 2601:845:8100:F300:E071:C5A5:7514:C982 ( talk) 21:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)