Talk:Humorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inconsistency[edit]

At the moment the article says that blood was considered to be produced in the liver and in the table it claims that blood was considered to be produced in the heart. It can't be both. To me that makes the content in the table questionable. ChristianKl (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


WP:OVERLINK[edit]

Greetings! I did the following changes to the article:

Phlegm redirected to Phlegm#Phlegm and humourism
Black bile was redirecting to melancholia. However, melancholia has been described as a mere consequence of excess black bile; the link was not pertaining to "black pile" itself.
Yellow bile was redirecting to bile | The link didn't provide any additional information on "yellow bile" itself.
Blood did not define "Blood (humor)" at all.
Ancient Egypt changed into ancient Egyptian medicine, the link remaining the same.

Here's also a list overlinked words: black bile; yellow bile; phlegm; blood; Greeks; Romans; Muslim; Western European; four elements; season; Greek; juice; flavor; Mesopotamia; foods; life; geographic; occupations; diseases; temperament; health; sanguine; choleric; melancholic; phlegmatic; Unani; drama; cellural pathology Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on. Yellow bile is urine, and Black bile is feces. No need to make anything mystical about it.216.116.87.110 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Modern Equivalents did not belong here[edit]

There have been repeated attempts to incorporate modern equivalents (first Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, then Keirsey Temperament Sorter). This is wrongheaded. It *is* significant to those modern personality characterisations that they have tried (or practitioners of them have tried) to link them with the utterly discredited theory of humourism. But it is not relevant to humourism, because these modern personality characterisations did not exist when it was a current theory. The equivalences are not helpful for a modern reader trying to get to grip with the humourist categorisations either, because they are not exact equivalents. Mostly, I think it is an attempt to give Myers-Briggs, Keirsey, and all an ancient pedigree that they simply do not have (and if they see themselves as valid theories should not want). For those reasons, I am removing the modern equivalents from the table and I would encourage other editors not to put them back. Furius (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request of Melancholia[edit]

A discussion is taking place on the title of this article at Talk:Melancholia#Requested_move. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 11:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy[edit]

discussion now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_encyclopedia_as_source_for_statement_that_humorism_is_pseudoscience Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Greetings! There was a source called '[Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy] recently added to the article. IMHO, we'd need something better than sources dealing with extraterrestrials. Moreover, if the source is to be taken as an "encyclopedia", then we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias (WP:TERTIARY). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK Jayaguru-Shishya enough edit warring, and enough shifting grounds.

  • you reverted first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
  • then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

Please provide a valid reason under policy or guideline for rejecting the use of the source and content:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.[1]

References

  1. ^ Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298. 

thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see the section Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy above Please see my post above. Also, like explained in my previous Edit Summary:[1] ""Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"
As it is said, it should be discussed on the article talk pages before adding sources like this. I hope this helps! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
OI hate repeating myself. I will do it anyway. Please provide a valid reason under policy or guideline for rejecting the use of the source and content. And more importantly, are you actually claiming that humorism is not pseudoscience today? Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
"... enough edit warring ... a bullshit reason..." Please watch your mouth, Jytdog. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I am watching the page, you don't have to ping me. And you did edit war. (breaking 3RR is punishable, but reverting over a revert is already edit warring) In any case, you clearly don't have a valid reason. Quoting RS is not "discussion" and tertiary sources are generally fine. I will take this to RSN as you have nothing to actually say. Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_encyclopedia_as_source_for_statement_that_humorism_is_pseudoscience Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

  •  Comment: unless someone can provide a clear reason why this published book is not considered reliable I see no reason to delete the sentence. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Kindzmarauli please comment at RSN - no point having 2 discussions on the same matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in Humor-Organ Table[edit]

In the table under the "Four Humors" section, relating the humors to organs, black bile is listed as being associated with the gallbladder, when I think it should instead be the spleen. I think it is YELLOW bile that is associated with the gallbladder. The two seem to be switched.

The page for Spleen#Society_and_culture discusses its association with black bile (and melancholy).

This is not a reliable source, but here is a webpage[2] on the humors that relates black bile with the spleen, and yellow bile with the gallbladder.

Could someone look into correcting this?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.172.20 (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

that is what the ref says. if you have a different reliable source (as we define that) that says different, that would be interesting. in wikipedia the source you link to is not considered a reliable source. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Temperaments incorrectly associated?[edit]

The table showing the associations between the elements, their humours and their temperaments does not agree with the information provided on the Four Temperaments page which, for example, says that the Sanguine Temperament is associated with Air, not Water as described by the table on this page.

Acegiak (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

fixed. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humorism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)