This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sydneg, great start! Please proceed with moving the article into the mainspace. Some thoughts on your continued work.

• Include a book infobox.
• Describe the book's thesis in the lede.
• Include some choice quotes from the book to substantiate claims, and cite with page numbers where appropriate.
• In discussion of reception, engage with some of the specific reviews. -Reagle (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reagle, is it okay to post a picture I took of the book cover? I received a comment from a Wikimedia user that it's not allowed. Thank you!

Though you can license your photo of the book for Wikipedia, you do not own the copyright of the thing you are photographing. However, Wikipedia does allow you to upload a low-res non-free image of a cover if you tag and template it correctly. -Reagle (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reagle, I think my article is ready to be moved to the mainspace. Can you please look over my changes and let me know if it's ready to be moved? Thank you! Sydneg (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few tweaks and yes I think we can ask User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) with help moving. Once you've done so, make sure to add categories and inbound links. -Reagle (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Shalor (Wiki Ed)! I'm Sydne. I'm taking Reagle's Online Communities class. I've written an article on Paul Bloom's book, Against Emapthy, and I think it's ready for the mainspace. Do you think you can help me with moving the article? Thank you! Sydneg (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Sydneg, Reagle - I do have one question:

• One of the sources pre-dates the book, specifically the fifth source. It was published in 2011 and the article says that Bloom's book was published in 2016. It's unclear how this source relates to the book. Is it an example cited in the book? If so, this needs to be clarified and it would be better to cite the specific part of Bloom's book that cites Kahneman's 2011 work as opposed to the 2011 book itself. The reason for this is that Kahneman's book wouldn't say anything about the 2016 book since it predated it and as such, it would be seen as original research to connect the two together in this format unless Bloom was working on the book at this point in time and discussed it with Kahneman, who then put it in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Even then, it would be important to note that the discussion predated the book's official release, as whatever Kahneman was told could have changed since the 2011 release of Thinking, Fast and Slow.

Now if you're using the book to cite something that Bloom had written in the past, be very, very careful about this since a past work by Bloom isn't the same thing as the 2016 book. Out of necessity Bloom could have changed or expanded the writing in order to make the concept book length. I see that Kahneman mentions a 2007 article by Bloom and John Van Reenen, however that doesn't mean that what Bloom wrote in 2007 would be the same as what he wrote in 2016. In a situation like this I would really only use the 2016 book or things that were written in response to the book's release, such as reviews, scholarly critiques, articles, and so on.

Other than that this looks good - there are some claims that need to be backed up and I've tagged them as such. They're clearly from the book and not original research, so all you need to do here is add a citation for the book with the page number for the given claim. It could use more reviews (here are some: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and a general synopsis section, but neither of those would be reasons not to move, as notability is established. The 2011 question is really the main thing I have any true concerns over, as this would be considered original research.

Now all of that said, I think that these are all things that you can work on while the page is live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sydneg,

I think you have a great article! I made a couple of grammatical/style fixes, but overall I think you did a great job with an interesting book.

Just a couple of suggestions:

• Make sure you go through other Wikipedia articles and have them link here so that your article is more integrated.
• I know that you're working with Professor Reagle to add the book cover, so I know you already know to add that.
• You certainly don't have to add it, but in other book infoboxes, I've seen: country, language, publisher, and pages. It's up to you to how much of this information you want to include.
• I would make sure you go back in and add your citations.
• In your "Definition of Empathy" section, the part about Adam Smith seems like a throwaway line. It isn't really clear what the connection is.
  • Same thing with the reference to Charles Goodman
• Make sure you are consistent with your punctuation around quotes. Sometimes the period is in the quotes, sometimes it's outside.

NortheasternFoley (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydneg, the article looks really good! I went through and made some grammar changes as some of your sentences had subject/verb separation that made your point unclear. My main recommendation would be for you to go back through and try to explain the concepts more clearly for a broad audience. While what you have would make sense for those familiar with Bloom's work or arguments on empathy, I don't think it will be as accessible for those just learning about it. Read through each section and ask yourself if someone completely unfamiliar with distinctions between empathy and morality would understand what you are saying. For example, in the section on Rational Decision Making, you say dehumanization and objectification are the result of empathy. How? Additionally, in the section on Empathy vs Compassion, you say he finds rationalization of acts of kindness are more effective than empathy in guiding moral actions. Why does he think that? And earlier, why does empathy misguide acts of kindness? I think what you have is great for people that have an idea already, but going through and really digging into why Bloom arrives at these conclusions will help outsiders better understand what you are saying. -Bcstanley1 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 3 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneg. Peer reviewers: NortheasternFoley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashtynfitz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]