This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology Low‑importance This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Princesslavabean.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Conversion therapy into this article. I do not see reliable sources which indicate that conversion therapy is one of multiple kinds of sexual orientation change efforts. I do not understand a difference in definition. I do not think there is a substantial difference between therapy and non-therapy interventions, nor do I see this distinction in reliable sources. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Daask (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have read some, although perhaps not all, of the talk page discussions on this topic, namely

• Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 14#Sexual Orientation Change Efforts
• Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground#Conversion therapy
• Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 19#Lead

Daask (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy, as the article notes, is used to describe spiritual or psychological attempts at changing sexual orientation. Those are a subset of the things covered in this article, which also covers biological/medical attempts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler: I would describe all of the approaches described in the methods section of this article as "spiritual or psychological", although I see biological approaches in the history section. Contrary to your distinction, I also see lobotomy in the conversion therapy article. I suspect most readers interested in psychological methods would be interested in other methods as well. I also suggest that these various methods form a single history, with various practitioners and programs frequently attempting multiple approaches. Many of the legal and ethical concerns apply equally to psychological and biological methods. I continue to support the merge. Daask (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are proposing merging "conversion therapy" into this article, then you are in effect proposing ending Wikipedia's coverage of conversion therapy as a distinct topic entirely. How much have you thought about whether that would be a good idea, about how difficult it would be to accomplish, and about what the consequences would be? Regardless of the case in theory for a merger I suspect that it would be exceptionally difficult and more trouble than it is worth. I am not saying there is no case for a merger, only that I am not convinced at this point that it should be attempted. You have to think the issue through first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I don't think I understand your point. I do agree that this is difficult, primarily because these are both fairly long articles, and also because it is a controversial topic. Can you elaborate more on the consequences you see? Daask (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try again. The consequences would include the fact that Wikipedia would simply not have an article about conversion therapy at all. There would be no article about a topic that is clearly notable, that is discussed in numerous books and articles, and that many people would expect to find a dedicated article about. Didn't it even occur to you that it might be questionable whether that is really desirable? Isn't it in fact intrinsically desirable for Wikipedia to have articles about notable topics, and wouldn't it confuse Wikipedia's readers for there to be no conversion therapy article, but only one about "Sexual orientation change efforts"? You write that you do not "understand a difference in definition" between conversion therapy and sexual orientation change efforts; I don't believe that is a good enough reason for a merger. That you personally do not "understand a difference" does not mean that there isn't one and I do not see why it would be a reason for a merger in itself. Since you are the one proposing the merger, it is of course up to you to explain exactly what benefit you see in it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support, as they are more or less the same concept. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the lede for including close paraphrasing of language from another source. The other source is http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx. Frankly, significant chunks of the lede appear to have been lifted directly from this APA report or very closely paraphrased. I have turned some of the material into quotes, but more work remains to be done to correct the problem. SunCrow (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, nor are they worth an edit war.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mancalledsting: Please refer to the message I left on your user talk page. An organization stating opposition to conversion therapy is not the same as banning it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a de facto ban.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mancalledsting: Source? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed such sourced claims in the article, as per https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html

and the Spitzer article itself.

Still there is this study listed in the Refs. Do remove it, as cannot do so on mobile. Zezen (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a name change for this article to 'Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression change efforts' (SOGIGECE). Just keeping it to sexual orientation limits the extents these methods go about trying to change someone, especially trans and further members of the queer community. The need to reflect efforts undertaken to change gender identity and gender expression are currently lost in the page's name. Jamzze (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article only discusses sexual orientation, so we wouldn't change the title to include something not discussed in it. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun editing the terminology within the article to reflect SOGIECE as it is a more encompassing term. Please do consider title change as change efforts are not just aimed at gay or homosexual communities, but the whole spectrum of sexual and gender minorities (e.g. LGBT+)Jamzze (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject we have to follow WP:MEDRS. A yet-unpublished preprint and three advocacy groups are not MEDRS compliant sources. MEDRS sources almost always treat sexual orientation and gender identity as separate topics. What's more, the four sources that you put in that use this longer "SOGIECE" term are all about the same research group, led by Salway and publishing their "Ending conversion therapy in Canada" report. For the definition of a topic, and for any other aspect, we have to follow WP:Due weight. A neologism by one team does not warrant that level of weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rebuttal, however, SOGIECE is a more inclusive term and includes greater elements of change efforts towards gender identity and gender expression that is currently limited in this article. I would recommend the edit I gave while highlighting its 'neologism', as you put it, or newness. Jamzze (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone curious, mentioned reversion diff is Special:Diff/985586657. For a better source, Jamzze, maybe try doi:10.1080/00224499.2021.1910616? --Artoria2e5 🌉 07:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I revised the History section of this page and deleted the "needs expansion" flag. Previously, the section was a bit disjointed and included a huge detailed subsection about Krafft-Ebing, which seemed out of place. It seems to me that any history that specifically relates to conversion therapy, rather than sexual orientation change efforts more broadly, belongs on the Conversion Therapy page (which has an extensive history section), not here. I've deleted subheadings in favor of a streamlined history section and added a new opening paragraph that covers pre-19th-century history related to this topic. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]