Talk:Four temperaments

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Myth0100.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmphillip.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Seinfeld? Elaine? Kramer? Jerry?...
The Seinfeld content is unsourced. So here we are. FletcherD - provide a reliable source that states the George/Elaine/Kramer/Jerry content is emblematic of the Four temperaments or stop adding it. It simply is vandalism unless a published reliable source with a full citation is provided along with it. Shearonink (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was initially added on June 3 by with this edit,
 * reverted as vandalism on June 20 by 80.193.9.61 with this edit,
 * restored on June 23 with this edit by with the edit summary of "This was not vandalism but adds important information".
 * reverted on June 23 as "unsourced edit/possible attempt at humor/vandalism" by myself with this edit,
 * restored again by FletcherD on June 24 as "Please stop undoing this edit. This is necessary and required." with this edit
 * reverted most recently on June 24 by myself as 'Re: the "Seinfeld/Elaine/etc" unreferenced content - take it to the talk page.' with this edit.
 * Seems definitely not "necessary and required". Thanks for persevering. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We're still cool, right? FletcherD (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Almost zero information about what the four temperaments are supposed to be
These article talks much about the history of the concept of the "four temperaments", but almost nothing about its content - i.e. what the "phlegmatic", the "melancholic", the "sanguine" and the "choleric" are supposed to be. MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In this revision, deleted the description of the "four temperaments"; that description had indeed the problem of describing the four temperaments from the POV of someone who believes in the theory, but with it, the article becomes almost useless for someone who wants to understand what the concept of the four temperaments is.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I may have been too hasty there. A rephrasing in a more neutral way, and stressing this were medieval/classical ideas, would be better. Do you want to take a stab at it, or should I? Kleuske (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like that:

Four fundamental personality types
According to the traditional vision of the four temperaments, they were described in these way:

Sanguine personality type were described primarily as being highly talkative, enthusiastic, active, and social. Sanguines were supposed to being more extroverted and enjoying being part of a crowd; they find that being social, outgoing, and charismatic is easy to accomplish. Individuals with this personality have a hard time doing nothing and engage in more risk seeking behavior. Choleric individuals were described as being more extroverted, independent, decisive, goal-oriented, and ambitious. These combined with their dominant, result-oriented outlook make them natural leaders. In Greek, Medieval, and Renaissance thought, they were also violent, vengeful, and short-tempered. Melancholic individuals were described as being analytical and detail-oriented, and deep thinkers and feelers. They were supposed introverted and tried to avoid being singled out in a crowd. A melancholic personality supposedly lead to self-reliant individuals who were thoughtful, reserved, often anxious. and striving for perfection within themselves and their surroundings, leading to tidy and detail-oriented behavior. Phlegmatic individuals were described as being relaxed, peaceful, quiet, and easy-going. Supposedly, they are sympathetic and care about others, yet they try to hide their emotions, beingc also good at generalising ideas or problems to the world and making compromises.

--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I made perhaps some grammar errors...--MiguelMadeira (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

, I restored (with some changes) the section (but I am not much sure if the grammar and English are good)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, it will be needed a reliable source.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Temperament
Make a suggestion 2405:204:5609:535C:0:0:693:A5 (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton
— Assignment last updated by Bahabilal (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Whose opinion is this, and should it be in the article?
The article says as of 9/1/2023 "One humour is not benefited nor desired more than the other, everyone needs all four of the temperaments in order to have good balance, but everyone is created differently by God and are unique." It is unclear whose opinion this is, and there is no citation. It could refer to the medieval thinking in general, but it appears to be an editorial interpolation. While I happen to agree with the statement, it seems incongruent with Wikipedia's standards. It has a grammatical error as well: it should read "...everyone is created differently by God and is unique." 2601:197:4580:4010:C868:2C5B:C221:5BA (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , thanks. Please go ahead and add sourcing if you can think of any. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this person is right to some extent because as for me I have been finding it difficult to know my actual temperament trait so should say I belong to all which isn't possible.
 * '''@Kashmiri
 * ''' 105.112.206.189 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a self-help guide, sorry. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-credible source/original research?
The final two paragraphs of the Modern views, implementations and restatements section are either uncited or cite a Medium article of dubious credibility. A quick snoop of the Medium article and edits associated with the IP which added that text seems to suggest that 66.27.116.20 may be the author of the aforementioned Medium article. Doesn't seem to be in line with Wiki standards. 71.202.159.197 (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)