Talk:Cotton Mather

message: 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)
thread_title: Biased Language and Signifier Words

message: (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)
thread_title: September 2017

message: 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.
:"Few puritans more loudly decried the bosom serpent of egotism than did Cotton Mather; none more clearly exemplified it. Explicitly or implicitly, he projects himself everywhere in his writings. In the most direct compensatory sense, he does so by using literature as a means of personal redress. He tells us that he composed his discussions of the family to bless his own, his essays on the riches of Christ to repay his benefactors, his tracts on morality to convert his enemies, his funeral discourses to console himself for the loss of a child, wife, or friend."
Dynasteria (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One of Wikipedia's core policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which means that we should not be trying to find something good to say about the subject of an article any more than we should be trying to find something bad to say about that subject. We should include in an article material that is significant and well attested in reliable sources, and present it in a neutral way. Different viewpoints on a subject that are presented in reliable sources should be included in an article, giving due weight proportional to how much support for the different viewpoints is found in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 21:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote basically calls Mather an egotist and implies he was a hypocrite. Is that neutral? I wasn't literally advocating presenting merely a rosy picture, which I hope you were well aware of. But it would behoove any biography to explain why the person was important enough to merit attention. As well, it is incumbent upon a biography to explain the accomplishments. If you're writing about George Washington, is the fact that he owned slaves all you focus on? Dynasteria (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like long quotes from works about a subject. One thing that you can do is summarize the contents of the quote, reducing the amount of space it takes up in the article. You can also look for reliable sources that illustrate other facets of Mather's life and work. In the end,it will be a judgment call, hopefully reached in collaboration with other editors, on how much weight to give to each source. So, be bold, find reliable sources, and edit the article. - Donald Albury 22:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacvan Bercovitch 

message: 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. , , , , 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)
replies: text: I added a "Personal life" section here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two more marriages... 15 children 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong personal life info  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The portrait is not John Cotton (1585-1652)