Talk:Ralph Cudworth

WikiProject class rating
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)

External links modified
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)

Ralph Cudworth and Psychology.
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)
 * Sounds interesting. Why don't you add the section?96.235.138.158 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)James Moriarty, PhD

Ancestry
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)

Surtsicna Thank you for explaining that.

However I would suggest that nothing is 'dumped' anywhere on this page.

I am sure that you know that a summary Ancestry section can be very helpful for people to understand the relationships between people (especially if there are multiple people with the same name, such as Ralph Snr and Jnr) and to be able to link to other pages (like Ralph Snr or Edward Lewkenor). The reason for adding the Ancestry is so that it provides people with a very quick summary of the descent and context for his background and family life. Likewise Ancestries and Arms have been added to father Ralph Snr and brother James Cudworth pages (which are of course different in content).

Given the paragraphs around n.18 explaining Ralph's Lewkenor connections the Ancestry section can be useful in clearing-up which Lewkenor individuals these are. Unfortunately, it could look strange to keep only the Lewkenors, Hautes and Machells but remove Henry and/or Jane Loddington simply because they are, apparently, not 'notable enough' so all Ralph's ancestors have been listed back so many generations regardless of the 'notability' of the individuals. After all, perhaps Henry Loddington was notable and might in the future be added with a Wikipedia page. The Ancestry section is also sourced from the other works on the page (cited for the Lewkenor relatives) as well.

I am sorry that you and the other user Dr Kay (20 Feb 2021) have found adding Ralph's Ancestry and heraldry so objectionable as to simply remove it as 'unsourced' and 'trivial' but both the heraldry and genealogy are neither unsourced or trivial - both provide a wider context for the article and enable links to other pages. SpearsHill (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)

Many of these (obviously not all) people are mentioned in the text - as I explained the earlier Cudworths are mentioned and the Lewkenor and Machell relatives are very important in understanding Ralph's connections and his career and advancement in general.

So it seems reasonable to me for a (hidden) Ancestry section to summarise these connections.

Sorry for not including further references sooner - I've added a County History link for both heraldry and ancestry. Ralph's heraldry was inscribed on his tombstone so was clearly of some importance to him. SpearsHill (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of cousins mentioned in Ralph_Cudworth 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)

But in order to accept any cousins' role in a life and career it has to be clear how they are related - that is where a quick summary ancestry/genealogy can be useful, as I said. Again, as with the Loddingtons, removing the Wroths or any of the other ancestors would not be useful (and not helpful to bias the ancestry in favour of either exclusively paternal/maternal side) - for instance, Jane Haute was related to the important Hautes of Ightham Mote so another important family link.SpearsHill (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Perhaps we might agree to disagree about this then - rather than keep removing and reinstating things.

I don't believe that I ever suggested that Wikipedia was or should be a genealogy directory but I do not see a diagram (containing at most 20 people's names and links to their pages where applicable) as a 'Directory'. A Chart showing cousin relationships would also be making the genealogy into a huge issue when relevant relationships are mentioned in the particular sections

I find the simple, unobtrusive (hidden) Ancestry section useful to clarify the broader context of the family, from which anyone can then look at the broader relationships mentioned earlier on the page. SpearsHill (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

Dr Kay has reduced the ancestry table to remove some generations and I have removed two less helpful references -keeping the more relevant refs- so I have removed the '{{overly detailed' tagging.SpearsHill (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)