Talk:Sex differences in psychology

message: "Women are twice as likely as men to use emoticons in text messages" 
Would this be relevant in this article? Benjamin (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source for it, then yes. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course. Which section? Benjamin (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems trivial and like a WP:RSBREAKING matter at first. And it would be a trivial matter if the research didn't touch on why the difference exists. But looking here, I do see that a source states, "The study also confirms previous research that women are more emotionally expressive in nonverbal communication; however, in this research, the authors found that while women may use emoticons more than men, the men used a larger variety of emoticons to express themselves." I'm not opposed to something being added to the article about this, but I'd prefer that it's coming from an academic/non-primary source...per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As for which section, seems it would best fit in the "Emotion" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  emoticons 

message: I've removed this. The source, a research paper, is a primary source for the claims made. Per WP:MEDRS, we generally rely on secondary and tertiary sources such as review articles and textbooks for scientific and/or medical claims. "On the other hand" is textbook WP:SYNTH. Besides which, the authors seem to be using their own idiosyncratic notion of "feminine countries". Even if this were duly weighted with more high-level sources, this concept would need explanation and attribution. Femininity is generally considered (rightly or wrongly) a property of individuals, not countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  van Hemert  

message: Source 68 is down  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animusel (talk • contribs) 11:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 68 not reachable 

message: I propose to merge Gender psychology into Sex differences in psychology. These articles have the same scope (WP:DUP), or if there is some slight difference I can't perceive, they nevertheless significantly overlap. If each article was expanded to featured article, they would continue to discuss the same topics as each other. They also do not represent different perspectives on the issue; both cover biology, cognition, sociocultural influences and history in essentially the same way, and I can only assume that they would continue to do so for the other content in each. 
While gender and sex are different concepts, both of these two articles are discussing both concepts (with both primarily discussing sex), which is in line with how the literature approaches them in this subject area. Continuing on from that, the literature does also most commonly use the term sex differences, and generally the topic is primarily referring to sex not to gender. This is the basis of my proposed direction for the merge. 
The name Sex differences in psychology is also more consistent with similar articles - e.g. other psychology articles Sex differences in memory, Sex differences in cognition, and Sex differences in intelligence, and the "parent" article Sex differences in humans.
Cheers.--Xurizuri (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal with Gender psychology 

message: Sex differences in psychology#Empathy is also covered within two other articles: Sex differences in emotional intelligence#Empathy and Empathy#Sex differences. It would make a lot more sense to combine these three as they have a duplicate scope, following the conventions of WP:SUMMARY. That is, the section would exist primarily within one article, and the other two articles would summarise the section.
I propose that the three sections are merged into this article, under the existing section Sex differences in psychology#Empathy. This should be the primary location of the section because of the size of the resulting section.
* It would be WP:UNDUE within Empathy, however a summary section there would not be.
* While empathy is absolutely relevant to emotional intelligence, it doesn't rest entirely comfortably within its scope. As such, it would be WP:UNDUE there, however a summary section would not be.
* It would  be undue to have a full section in this article.
While this situation isn't the typical definition of a merge, it's the closest thing to it that I can think of. As such, I plan to follow the merging procedure for this. -- Xurizuri (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As you've said, what you've proposed isn't the typical definition of a merge. What examples can you point to this being done? Regardless, I don't think it'll be helpful for the reader base. This information is pertinent to all three articles and it should be developed according its relationship to the the article in question. We shouldn't have them be copies of each other. GBFEE (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three empathy sections 

message: I've noticed that there are several sections that give a single sentence of information. There is a link to a different article within, but would it not be easier to put more information within those sections rather than a link to a different page? RyCo13 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links within the article 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone

message: I encourage  to discuss the content they wish to change and/or include here. As I mentioned in my recent edit summary, there were numerous issues with this large edit. I've partially reverted it a second time, but retained a couple of solid grammatical fixes made by this editor. The other aspects of this edit do not seem to me to be improvements, and would need to be discussed individually before they can be re-added. Generalrelative (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, a significant portion of that material, perhaps even most (I'd have to check some of the sources to see their nature), seems to be sourced to exactly the sort of sources we strongly prefer, that of academic reviews and books. I really think the material cited to such a source should be restored, with grammar fixes and in-text attribution as necessary. If there are still NPOV issues then that should be resolved by adding countervailing sources of high quality. Crossroads -talk- 14:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, go ahead, Crossroads. I'd be happy to evaluate each edit individually. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed content from student editor 

message: — Assignment last updated by BingoBongoBungo (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing