Talk:Humorism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Humorism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

Religion: Interfaith Start‑class

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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): Fridaday, Toothpaiste. Peer reviewers: Victoriamartinez3456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trxydi. Peer reviewers: Dcoop7665.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

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)[reply]

Summary somewhat misleading

Reading this, the heading is not clear that this article is about an ancient and completely discredited scientific idea, akin to Ptolemaic cosmology. This makes it hard for a reader unfamiliar with the subject to understand that it is mostly of interest due to its historical importance, rather making it sound like it is a theory that is either still in use, only recently disproved, or mainly a current fringe theory (It very well might be as well, but it mainly is of historical interest. Same as ptolemaic cosmology should probably not focus on current believers in it.) 71.10.232.9 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Modern Equivalents did not belong here

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)[reply]

Move request of Melancholia

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)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

^ 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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"... enough edit warring ... a bullshit reason..." Please watch your mouth, Jytdog. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Kindzmarauli please comment at RSN - no point having 2 discussions on the same matter. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in Humor-Organ Table

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Temperaments incorrectly associated?

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)[reply]

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

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708073035/http://www.bloodmed.com/home/hannpdf/bjh3130.pdf to http://www.bloodmed.com/home/hannpdf/bjh3130.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

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

Humorism or Humourism?

So, Bringlish recently changed all instances of "Humor" to the British spelling "Humour," with the reasoning that Humo(u)rism was largely a European phenomenon (I could find historical American sources on Humo(u)rism but they cite European sources as their authority so, yeah).

Korean_Jesus111 reverted on the grounds that the article is still titled Humorism and should've been moved to Humorism. I think that the rename was Bringlish's tenth edit, so he wasn't autoconfirmed until just now and so I'm not sure he could have moved the article at the time.

I'm considering moving it myself but I had to ask "wait, what term was most commonly found in humo(u)rist literature?" Now, I've not done a proper Google n-graph or whatever, but here's what I found going through historical sources (not just modern translations of historical sources):

"Humour" (six authors, eight works): Giambattista della Porta's Natural Magick, William Salmon's Botanologia, the English Herbal (written in America!), Ebenezer Sibly's Key to Physic, Culpepper's English Physician, and New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences; Daniel Defoe's Compleat System of Magick: Or, The History of the Black-Art, Sloane 3826's Book of the Angel Raziel, and the (very loose) English translation of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's Declamatio de nobilitate & precellentia Fœminei sexus
"Humor" (nine-ish authors, thirteen-ish works): Chymica Vannus and Eugenius Philalethes's (a.k.a. Thomas Vaughan's, i.e. "Vannus") Magica Adama and edition of the Fama Fraternitatis; Basil Valentine's Last Will and Testament; Giovanni Bracesco's translation of Pseudo-Geber's Espoitione di Geber Philosopho and De Alchemia Dialogi (part 1 and part 2); Michael Maier's Arcana arcanissima, Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft, Anton de Haen's De Magia Liber, Paschal Beverly Randolph's After Death, the Disembodiment of Man (though other works of his use "humor" in the modern sense), Giordano Bruno's De Vinculis in Genere and De Magia,
Both: Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's Three Books of Occult Philosophy

This was a surprise for me. "Humor," at least as far as alchemy is concerned, seems to be the more common historical spelling. Considering the Latin is hūmor, this does make sense, though. Sibly and Randolph demonstrate that the split happened somewhere during the 19th century and by that point they were undeniably WP:FRINGE works (granted, the works I cited weren't all exactly mainstream but at the time they weren't considered to be in Not even wrong territory). Another interesting trend is that all the sources that use "Humour" were either written or translated by Brits (even if Salmon was writing in and about America). The original version of Agrippa's Declamatio doesn't seem to use either "humor" nor "humour," and I'd be willing to bet that della Porta's and Agrippa's original Latin works strictly use "Humor." This appears to be an area where British English overcorrects and veers away from historical spelling. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

he probably referred to blood composites in patients with bleeding internal organs

When Hippocrates really observed "open bodies" he should have seen but one bile: green. So yellow bile and black bile are philosophical connotations. Some have coined these as universal but I think Hippocrates was more modest, and, was talking about "the Greeks" he had met.

Point???

145.129.136.48 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

contiued use in Western medicine

"Although advances in cellular pathology and chemistry criticized humoralism by the seventeenth century" -- I am not aware that the science of cellular pathology was known in the 16th , 17th or 18th century. Plant cells were first reported in 1665, and red blood cells in the 1670s, but cells in animal tissue were first studied in 1824 by Henri Dutrochet and credit for the first work in cell biology is usually ascribed to Theodor Schwann in 1839. Our article on Pathology correctly says that "Modern pathology began to develop as a distinct field of inquiry during the 19th Century". As for chemistry, biochemistry began in the period from Lavosier in 1777 to Justus von Liebig in 1869.

The humoral theory was criticized on other ground by the 16th or 17 th century, but not because of cells. And I think even so it continued not "well into the 17th century" but "well into the 19th century"., but for exact referencesI need to do some checking. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Criticism of Humorism?

Was the theory truly completely accepted in the Ancient Greece/Rome, there wasn’t any criticism of it? I know it was completely dominant in the European medicine at least until Renaissance, but there was truly no opposition what so ever? It would be nice to have some critical thinking examples on this theory.

Ceplm (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science to Newton

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 12 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duck000 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Patt0400 (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dandanakka?

The opening paragraph of §Four humors says "four dandanakka humors"; the word "dandanakka" appears nowhere else in the article. Should it be mentioned previously in the article or removed? Does anyone know what it means? Witherence (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1]