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]

It seems like the actual trouble with this article is the fact that the bulk of it (approx. the bottom two-thirds of the article) is actually about conversion therapy. The conversion therapy article is much better maintained and incredibly exhaustive (and I completely agree that it's important to have both articles); it seems like this article would do better to ditch pretty much everything that is conversion-therapy-specific so as not to duplicate what's on that page. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2022 (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]

As noted above in the proposed merge section, it seems like it would be helpful to make sure that this article focuses on sexual orientation change efforts broadly, and that any information solely about conversion therapy should be housed in that article, rather than here. In that vein, I've reduced the Legal Status section of this article to a summary after integrating any unique and currently relevant info into the Legal Status section of the Conversion Therapy article. Everything in the section related solely to conversion therapy, was outdated, and duplicated the better-maintained section in the Conversion Therapy article. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this Stonewall article is an appropriate source for this sentence?

As of early 2022, at least fourteen countries have instituted a nationwide ban (including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, Germany, India, Malta, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa, Taiwan, and Uruguay), and several more are actively considering legislation that would ban conversion therapy (including France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom).

There seems to be a range of sources on the section for Legal status of conversion therapy. I have not changed the sentence, as it seems as if the claim is justified. I'm just wondering if the Stonewall source can be used when they are actively campaigning for a ban on conversion therapy in the UK. I don't think that we would normally allow a Conservative Party source for the consequences of Brexit or a Green Party source for the impact of climate change, and these seem analogous cases to me. Perhaps each country should be justified separately with a bespoke source? Epa101 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to neutrally ping all reasonably-involved editors across both articles. @Crossroads, Flyer22 Frozen, Mathglot, NatGertler, Pepperbeast, Pastelitodepapa, RadicalCopyeditor, Sideswipe9th, and TheTranarchist: Apologies if this discussion does not concern you.

Based on a prior discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy § Not "therapy", I propose merging Sexual orientation change efforts into Conversion therapy. In spite of its length, this article is ostensibly a duplicate of that article's scope, and there is substantial overlap in what is being covered. Based on Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions (a list of RS definitions of conversion therapy, compiled for a largely unrelated purpose), it appears that a number of reliable sources define conversion therapy as ostensibly synonymous with SOCE and GICE:

• "Conversion therapy, also known as sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), is the scientifically discredited practice of trying to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity"^[1]
• "So-called 'conversion therapy' refers to any form of intervention, [...] that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or sexual behaviors (sexual orientation change efforts [SOCE]) or an individual’s gender identity (gender identify change efforts [GICE])."^[2]
• "I should note from the outset that in the mental health literature these terms ["conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy"] are being replaced by the less familiar but more accurate acronym sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) because these methods do not constitute a legitimate, accepted form of therapy."^[3]

Several past discussions on this talk page have recognized the duplication of scope and content. RadicalCopyeditor has done some excellent work to improve it, but I still think there is not sufficient distinction to differentiate this as a separate topic from conversion therapy. The chief argument against doing so has simply been the large amount of outstanding content here which would need to be incorporated. I, a deletionist at heart, see the obvious solution... The only notable differences are this article's inclusion of techniques like castration, lobotomy, and corrective rape (which cannot be called therapy even in the loosest sense), and its exclusion of anti-trans gender identity/expression change efforts (whereas modern sources tend to bundle the three together). I think the more barbaric forms of SOCE/GICE could still fit snugly into the target article's History section.

The status quo is that this article is neglected in favor of its much more recognized and actively edited sibling, which currently 7x as many total edits. I personally only discovered it after considerable discussion at Talk:Conversion therapy. I would also remark (though not as a proper rationale for merger) that it's accrued a mild stink of WP:POVFORK and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and gives too much weight and credence to the views of discredited cranks like Richard A. Cohen and his organization, Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality.

For these reasons above, I think we should resolve to begin the project of WP:MERGEing and WP:REDIRECTing this article into Conversion therapy. I await your thoughts. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT BUT, I actually think SOCE is probably the better article title. Obviously, not all SOCE are CT. If there's too much content to be covered in a single article, perhaps some of the 'Legal status of CT' stuff could be split off. PepperBeast (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect: Per what we've discovered at Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions. While the Human Rights Campaign prefers SCOE and GCOE, those specific terms haven't received much traction as of yet. Maybe in the future we will need to fork conversion therapy out to SCOE and GCOE, but we don't at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new parent article: Given bullet #3 which you added above, are you sure you want to merge SOCE ⟶ Conversion therapy? Ultimately, it seems, it likely will be the other way around. As mentioned at the "not therapy" discussion, it's probably premature to use the SOCE name until it gains majority usage, however moving content from SOCE (you mentioned castration, etc.) into "<anything> therapy" just seems to be setting us up for undoing it all later. If that merely meant merging now to "Conversion therapy", and then renaming the article X years from now to "SOCE", I'd have no objection; that would be simple. However, the topics suggested by the two titles are not identical, and a future rename to SOCE won't work, because "Conversion therapy" is only a subset of it, and it will most likely have to be split off again, or at worst, live in its own, long, section at the combined article. As a compromise, I wouldn't object to a merge of the two articles to a new, third article with a different title. This proposed article would be a parent article in WP:Summary style, with "Conversion therapy" and "SOCE" as two child articles (likely with others like GICE and SIT to follow). As for the title, probably it would have to be a WP:NDESC that encompasses both/all subtopics, such as the ones mentioned at the #Terminology paragraph at Talk:Conversion therapy § Not "therapy". Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]