Talk:Empath

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that mirror neurons may explain the phenomenon of empaths? Source: Thomson, Helen (2010-03-10). "We feel your pain: Extreme empaths". New Scientist. doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(11)61228-1. ISSN 0262-4079. Archived from the original on 2010-03-15. Retrieved 2023-01-14.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maureen Keleher and St. Francis Hospice, Hawaii
  • Comment: DYK check is wrong about this article as it was frequently deleted outside formal processes like WP:PROD/WP:AfD, three times being replaced with a redirect uncontested. I'm the first moderately experienced editor to try to split the page from empathy.

Created by Psiĥedelisto (talk). Nominated by Psiĥedelisto (talk) at 10:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC).

• I don't really need to be listed as a DYK author for my contributions, but thank you for being generous with sharing credit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Interesting article. BorgQueen (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto and BorgQueen: I would really like to promote this hook, but am concerned that two sources in the article probably don't pass WP:RS: The Companion and Swans.com. Could you please take a look and see if other sources could be substituted in the article? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle and BorgQueen: Hmm. The Swans source is supplementary (i.e. not required to back up the fact, just interesting) and I am not sure what your problem with The Companion is? It's not an incredible source, but it's only serving to show people describe Troi (of Star Trek) as an empath, so I am not sure it's an issue. The fact isn't that important though. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: status report? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been looking for possible alternatives to replace The Companion as a source (which by the way has now been taken down), in case that helps. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have upgraded the source for Deanna Troi with an excellent one from this book (may be worth a quick read; you can find the full chapter in SpringerLink via Wikipedia Library). I removed both Swans and PhAct as sources, and upgraded with this article from Life magazine. So anyway, I am happier with the overall sourcing of this article now, and am happy for it to be promoted. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Claims about self-described empaths

The article says:

They [neuroscientists] suggest that, on average, people who describe themselves as empaths have a greater ability to empathize than other people, and that this ability may be the result of a neurological difference, particularly in the responsiveness of mirror neurons."

The citations provided talk about there being variability in the capacity of humans to empathize with others but they do not appear to suggest that self-identified empaths in particular have a greater ability to empathize with other people. 143.159.85.9 (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the term

"The word and concept first appeared in a 1956 science fiction novel called The Empath by Scottish author JT McIntosh. He was making a play on the word telepath." Google said. No other independent verification. 74.127.201.54 (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this a paranormal(pseudo science) or an academic term?

I am confused, is this a real scientific term people throw about or is the idea that people can be hyper-empathetic pseudoscience? Drocj (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj: No medical academic literature exists. Some social scientists use it to talk about people self-applying the term, and some controversial psychologists use it this way too. Nevertheless, I consider its main use to be the paranormal use. When I wrote article, I was going for NPOV, however. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Empath → Empath (parapsychology)Empath (parapsychology) – The article is about the parapsychological concept of an "empath", and not about a person who feels empathy. Therefore distinguishing information is necessary. There are two more articles called "Empath", as well: Empath (character) and Empath (album), so if the move is successful the Empath article can become a disambiguation page. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958^Talk 07:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I support a move to Empath (Parapsychology) but mainly to make clear that the topic is fringe. That could also be acheived on this page with some rewriting, which I'm not sure I could quite pull off. Ideally, Wikipedia's coverage of things should be in proportion to the coverage it receives in reliable sources, and so I wonder what use this article really has. Aspets (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I also support this proposed move. Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on page views alone, there is a strong argument that disambiguation is unnessecary as this page clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, given there are several other articles for subjects called Empath, I would support moving this article to the proposed namespace. There is already an existing disambiguation page for "Empath", so no need to create another! Dfadden (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. No policy-based rationale is provided and I find no evidence that disambiguation is needed here. I'm unable to pull up Pageviews for Empath and the output for Empath (parapsychology) does not seem correct—I think this has something to do with the recent moves? The nom and other editors support the move for the purpose of labeling the domain of this topic. Dfadden asserts that there is a strong argument that disambiguation is unnessecary as this page clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm not aware of any policy or precedent for doing this when disambiguation is not otherwise necessary. The article could be improved, but it does pretty clearly describe the subject as primarily outside the realm of (regular) psychology. The title and article are already distinguished from empathy by the distinct spelling. Perhaps adding {{Distinguish|Empath}} to the top would serve readers. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – this is the primary topic for the term "empath", so no disambiguation is required. I understand that this needs to be distinguished from the broader concept of empathy, but that's a job for the short description, hatnotes, and lead section, not the article title. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, would you be so kind as to help in making those necessary changes? Aspets (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Clear primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add link to Dark empath

Obviously a related topic, based on the same word. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9116:E99E:727F:35C7 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Please look at the disambiguation page. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be seeing? I see no link to Dark empath even from the disambig page. Furthermore a dark empath seems to be a (claimed) subtype of this "empath" here, so the link here would be relevant. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9116:E99E:727F:35C7 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The page Dark Empath refers to a psychological concept while this page refers to a parapsychological concept. As such there is not a natural link between these topics despite the similar names. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)