Talk:Ralph Cudworth

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ralph Cudworth. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524190252/http://www.scituatehistoricalsociety.org/families/CudworthJames.htm to http://www.scituatehistoricalsociety.org/families/CudworthJames.htm
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) 02:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think there should be a section on Ralph Cudworth and psychology - as he not only invented the word, but also had a distinct view of psychology. Ralph Cudworth rejected the medieval practice of cutting up the human mind into "will" and "reason" (which is at the heart of the scholastic treatment of the subject), instead arguing for the unity of the human mind. Also Cudworth insisted that psychology had to rest on an assumption of free will (moral agency) and that without this basic assumption the subject of psychology was meaningless.2A02:C7D:B417:4800:751F:320B:5DCE:D407 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting. Why don't you add the section?96.235.138.158 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ralph Cudworth and Psychology. 

message: Yesterday I removed the ahnentafel from the article because, in addition to it being unsourced, I could not understand what all those names were doing on this page. SpearsHill restored the ahnentafel, citing three sources , of which the two available to me do not appear to contain those names, but I'll assume the third one does. What remains unanswered is the question of relevance of all this genealogy. Why exactly does the reader need to know, for example, that the theologian and philosopher Ralph Cudworth's mother's father's mother's father was someone named Henry Loddington? There is no context for that information; it is just dumped there. Surtsicna (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But there is no context since these people are not discussed or even named in the text. Wikipedia has policies against this type of content: WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

text: I see a lot of cousins mentioned in Ralph_Cudworth#Family background but very few of the ancestors. It seems natural to me that cousins might affect one's life and career, but the part played by great-great-grandparents is far from clear. If anything, a useful genealogy chart would mention these cousins, not a Robert Wroth. Surtsicna (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The chart used in the article does not at all clarify how Cudworth is related to those cousins. The cousins are simply not in the chart. The chart needed to illustrate his relationship with those cousins is Template:Chart. I am not suggesting that Robert Wroth alone be removed. I am suggesting that all of those names lack context. Wikipedia is not a genealogy directory. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Since the content has been disputed by multiple editors, I have tagged the section as possibly excessively detailed in order to encourage more people to join the discussion. If you could cite a general biography of Cudworth that names these people, that would help establish the encyclopedic relevance of the content. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry