Talk:Four temperaments

message: The Seinfeld content is unsourced.
*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.
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)
replies: text: Seems definitely not "necessary and required". Thanks for persevering. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

text: We're still cool, right? FletcherD (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seinfeld? Elaine? Kramer? Jerry?... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Almost zero information about what the four temperaments are supposed to be 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Four fundamental personality types 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: , thanks. Please go ahead and add sourcing if you can think of any. — kashmīrī TALK 18:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose opinion is this, and should it be in the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-credible source/original research?