Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Yes I added duplicate material

In [1]: "Reverted good faith edits by 135.0.167.2 (talk): Duplicates material already in the history section - Hooker and Bieber are discussed below."

Oh, come on, all the info in the section's lede are also found in it's subsections, but that's what the lede is for. Currently the lede only focuses on psychoanalysis as if it was the only player. If a lede should only mention non-duplicate information, rather than show a proportionate summary and impression, then what is a lede for? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article. The history section is already confused and cluttered, and I'm afraid your edit made it worse - which is why it was reverted. Feel free to open a thread about the history section on the article's talk page; it would be a more appropriate place to discuss matters than my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the lede of the history section to the bottom of the lead on the top of the article. I felt that's where it belongs anyways, but last time I was afraid of messing things up so just added to the section lead. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do things like that; it's not at all helpful. The "lede" of the history section should remain where it was; it was in the right place to begin with. The lead of the article certainly doesn't need expanding. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ha, was just seconds form pressing save. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not saving. If you want to make major changes to the article, please discuss them first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You did say, "It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article." Now, did you mean

A) the section ledes summarize only the sections, but only the article lead should summarize the whole article.

or

B) the section ledes should not summarize anything, (maybe be a transition, or be completely removed or only mention things which can't fit in any subsection), and only the article lead should summarize the article's important details.

I thought it was B, but it's getting gradually, ambiguous, and I just wanna check. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant B. Please be more careful in your edits: I have had to revert an edit you made that was presumably well-intentioned, but which misrepresented source material and made the article significantly less accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that edit (if you look closely) didn't change any meanings and moved things around, but that edit/revert is off topic and neither of us should care about it.

Ok, now that I'm clear you meant B, we both agree that the summary should go in the main lead. So I'll simply add the info about the APA there, as it's a fact of key importance to this article (I'm sure you did not contest this). The whole time, all I really wanted to do was mention the key fact about the APA in the summary, but simply wasn't clear where the summary of the history is, because if you look at the article, you have to admit it DID look like the summary of the history was the history sections lead. I don't really mind where the summary will be, I just read the article lead and history lead, found that it talked about so much psychoanalysis and other strange details, without making the basic idea clear (that psychiatry's main players first started an effort to "cure" homosexuality, and now learned it ain't no mental disease and efforts were disastrous). You may know that, I may know that, but if you look closely, someone skimming this article will get no such clue about the big picture. That was all I wanted to fix, not debate over where the summary should be. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did look at your edit closely. You moved the sentence, "Some psychoanalysts felt free to ridicule and abuse their gay patients", from a place that indicated that it was part of developments subsequent to the 1930s to a place that implied that it was part of an earlier situation, in the 1920s. Your change was completely inaccurate, and misrepresented the source material used. Please be more careful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the lead, could you please clarify exactly what information you want to add, and where? The lead is already too long, and rather confusing. Further additions could easily make it worse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most probably right about that edit, I won't question it.

I'll add that same paragraph (remember?), somewhere where it fits with smoothly. I'll also shorten the lead so it mentions less fine detail, and just the big picture. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

"Pray the gay away" redirects here. For the Our America with Lisa Ling episode, see Pray the Gay Away? Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Conversion therapy is now condemned scientifically and ethically by many medical and scientific organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Counseling Association, and the World Health Organization, and has been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries. Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure." The APA condemns "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." It also states that political and moral debates over the US society's integration of homosexuals have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue." In February 23, 2011, the Attorney General of the United States wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, "while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable". The APA notes, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation." The American Counseling Association further calls on ethical practitioners not to refer patients to practitioners who do. The advancement of conversion therapy may also cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation. Psychiatric efforts to convert homosexuals in the US and Germany were mainly a 20th century phenomenon, although intolerance existed before. In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession. In 1956, a study found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men in happiness and well-adjusted nature but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974. Today, the highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations and the therapy is derided by critics as "pray the gay away". The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), often partnering with religious groups. In 2012, the Pan American Health Organization of the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned against services that purport to "cure" non-heterosexuals, as they lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to non-heterosexuals' health and well-being, and noted the global scientific and professional consensus that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. They further called on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity. They also noted that gay minors have sometimes been forced to attend these "therapies" involuntarily, being deprived of their liberty, sometimes kept in isolation for several months, and that these findings were reported by several United Nations bodies. The Pan American Health Organization recommended the practices be subject to sanctions and penalties under national legislation, as a violation of the ethical principles of health care and human rights protected by international and regional agreements. References

Here's the edit if you really want a close look. diff 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that proposal is no good. There's too much detail there. Bieber's book was certainly influential, but I doubt that there is any point in mentioning it in the lead. Your proposed addition focuses on Bieber's theories about the development of homosexuality, something which is of only secondary importance to an article that is mainly about efforts to alter homosexuality. I realize that the efforts to change homosexuality were justified partly in terms of ideas about its causes, but that connection isn't made explicit in your proposed addition (making the connection clear would require even more text). Evelyn Hooker is again certainly a significant and influential figure, but again, I doubt that it improves the article to mention her in the lead. That Hooker's work made her "hero to many gay men and lesbians" is an important part of her personal story, but it's not of such importance that it belongs in the lead. The best thing for the lead would be to streamline it and cut it back - not to make even more additions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A agree that section had too much detail. I shortened it down the the important facts: the APA and DSM were in the bandwagon at the time. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, before I let you comment on the whole edit, about we first agree on that one paragraph, because the rest on the edit is just copyedit and rearrangement to shorten the lead. Should that paragraph be added, yes or no? (You can talk about the rest of the edit afterwards.) 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not sure exactly what you are proposing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Transgender?

One thing I'm rather surprised is the lack of discussion, both in the article and on the talk page, about transgender conversion therapy. Looking through the archives, there's only one thread about it (here), which soon devolved into the COI-infighting by User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor that led to Sexology last year.

That said, there may be space to discuss trans conversion therapy, especially given the controversy regarding Kenneth Zucker's use of it and later appointment to DSM 5 working groups. I don't have references to hand at this exact moment in time (although they undoubtedly exist), but I think it would be prudent to have this discussion anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to have been an arbitrary decision made by a certain faction that "conversion therapy" has nothing whatever to do with "treatments" to change gender identity or gender expression, only with efforts to change sexual orientation. However, the law is evolving to include gender identity and gender expression as protected categories of discrimination, as well as sexual orientation. Each of the new laws banning conversion therapy for minors includes language protecting gender-variant minors, not only homosexual minors. Despite pedantic issues about the academic status of the phrase "trans conversion therapy" the thing itself is becoming illegal in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.14.230 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is "transgender conversion therapy"? Are there sources that discuss it, using that term? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as transgender conversion therapy. There do exist bloggers and trans- activists who make claims, but it does not appear in the professional therapy literature (except as political/activist commentary). The idea is generally intended as an analogy to "conversation therapy" for homosexuality/heterosexuality, but does not exist in reality. The state of the science is that: (1) Gay men stay gay, and straight men stay straight, no matter what you do. (2) There have been many attempts—explicit and published in peer reviewed therapy journals—to change gay to straight, and none has met with any reasonable evidence of change. (3) For transgenderism, however, feelings of being in the wrongly sex'ed body are less stable: Roughly 80% of the pre-pubescent kids stop being transgender by puberty and instead identify as regular (cisgendered) gays/lesbians. (4) Before permitting sterilization (including castration) etc., Zucker and other therapists first attempt to help the kids be comfortable with their born sex until they are old enough to undergo the surgeries or they know which kids will remain in the 20% minority instead of growing into being gay/lesbian. Zucker's approach does indeed differ from the "surgery on demand for children" favoured by some activists, but calling it "conversation therapy" (etc.) is the political line, not the encyclopedic description.

2. I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution in this discussion: Making accusations of COI without evidence violates NPA. I was (repeatedly) accused of violating COI in the Sexology Arbcom case, but ArbCom found no such thing. ArbCom did, however, put this and other paraphilia-related topics under discretionary sanctions. So, again, I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution.

3. For anyone reading the Archive that User:Sceptre linked to, I was writing at that time (2008) as User:MarionTheLibrarian, before I started editing under my real name. I believe the discussion at that archive (including the input from the other editors) speaks for itself.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

California law SB-1172, banning conversion therapy for minors also bans transgender conversion therapy because it includes this text:

"(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

Practitioners of transgender conversion therapy do seek to "change behaviors or gender expressions", and will be prosecuted under SB-1172 if they commit their crime in the state of California.

1. "Transgender conversion therapy" seems to be a term you invented. It can't be used in the article.

2. The law you mentioned refers to "Sexual orientation change efforts". This isn't the sexual orientation change efforts article. It's Conversion therapy.

3. Please see WP:BLP, the policy governing how Wikipedia deals with living people. You can't say just anything about a living person on a talk page. I've removed part of your comments, as they accuse a prominent living person of criminal behavior. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

4. In addition to all of the above, don't play games on the talk page. You removed my comments without explanation. Don't do that. I had a reason for removing part of your comments (you violated BLP). That doesn't give you a reason to remove my comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transgender conversion therapy" may not be a term favored by trans reparatist psychologists, but as their practice is now illegal in two US states, they would hardly seem to be in a disinterested position to decide the matter.

This isn't a forum for general discussion. Does your comment have any relevance to improving the article? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It would improve the article to include discussion about transgender conversion therapy and the new laws prohibiting it.

No it wouldn't, because there's no such subject. There aren't any reliable sources that discuss "transgender conversion therapy." It's simply a neologism, used by maybe a handful of people, and it doesn't have academic recognition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well then, "conversion therapy applied to transgender people" is not a neologism. And it certainly has legal recognition regardless of whether Archives of Sexual Behavior would use the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.14.230 (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The gender conversion treatments of course should be included. To my knowledge it is the most extreme form of conversion therapy available and the only one which permanently seeks to alter these people's physical bodies. And there is infact much opposition both to it's effectivness and it's ethical implications. For example Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine is in opposition. http://online.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120

I think the article is too long and needs a split

I think we should have a general, and short article about Conversion therapies, and specific articles that deals with each one of the types of therapies (i.e Repairative\Behavioral\Spiritual etc), Ben-Natan (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

At 88 kb, the article is not too long. I disagree that a split is indicated, as the history, much of the practice, and the reception is common between the several types of therapy. Whatever small differences exist between therapies can be described here.

If you are trying to help one of the types of therapy rise above the general rejection of the whole field, then you should know such an attempt would be fruitless and useless. None of the therapies are respected or accepted. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you should note that it's your personal taste from the 88kb (I for example wrote "I think" at the start). To the matter: I am not trying to help any of the types of the therapies - It feels as though The discussion haven't even started and you hasten to attack me just for suggesting to split the article and have Encyclopedian articles about the different approaches to CT's. I hope for a good discussion. Ben-Natan (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Transgendered part

"to convince a transgender person to give up their true gender and identify with their sex assigned at birth."

I propose a change to:

"to convince a transgender person to give up their true gender identity and identify with their sex assigned at birth."

Because I think that this might be more precise, as gender identity specifically refers to "A person's sense of self as a member of a particular gender." (Wikitionary) 173.180.66.26 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the addition of that sentence. And this, this, this and this are the changes to it so far. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This has almost certainly surfaced due to the Leelah Alcorn case. It should've been covered years ago, but one of the primary contributors of this article is a close colleague of a pro-conversion therapy academic, so… Sceptre ^(talk) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"pseudoscience" claims

article claims conversion therapy is "pseudoscience". the links/cites are all either dead or lack any basic acceptability in wikipedia supposed standards of laying such a claim. Even more, on a scientific note, pretty much everything in psychology is "pseudoscience" when held up to the the full rigors of scientific scrutiny, depending on how broad a semantic brush one wishes to stroke.68.117.88.143 (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the result of WP:LINKROT. I and other editors have previously verified the sources. When I have a chance, I will see if I can find new links directly to the sources, or new sources.- MrX 12:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the links that is claimed to be source material for the "psuedo science" claim suggests over 10% efficacy in conversion therapy. If something works for 1 out of 10 people, in no way shape or form is it "psuedoscience", regardless of whatever hyperbolic nonsense one author chooses to espouse. Given the highly pejorative denotation of a "psuedoscience" this is not even remotely encyclopedic beginning to a wiki article. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even need to check to see which source you're talking about to see that your premise is a misunderstanding of what pseudoscience is. Whether something is scientific or pseudoscientific in no way depends on some measure of efficacy. (See pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The term is so horribly vague and open to interpretation in wikipedia version of pseudoscience almost everything on earth lacking a mathematical proof is "pseudoscience". And like I said, the entirety of psychology, almost the entirety anyway, would fall under the same category. So when I go around edited ever psychology related wikipage calling it pseudoscience, you are going to be there to back me up, right? 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No it's not (see pseudoscience). We use reliable sources and are not allowed to conduct original research. So, no, editing pseudoscience into every psychology related article would be not be advisable.- MrX 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately, tt's already OR by misusage of pseudoscience. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's properly sourced. There is no problem there.--McSly (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

umm, no, it's not properly sourced. Hence why i made this section in the first place. /boggle 68.117.88.143 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, read the link in my original response. WP:LINKROT←click this

WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online.- MrX 23:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Such a grand and pejorative statement as the supposed pseudoscience of anything, in order to be included in wikipedia, should be EASILY found in a vast amount of peer reviewed scientific journals. Short of that, it doesn't get included. 68.117.88.143 (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I easily found a dozen books saying that conversion therapy is pseudoscience. One scholarly article is "Healing Homosexuals: A Psychologist's Journey Through the Ex-Gay Movement and the Pseudo-Science of Reparative Therapy", published in 2002 in Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy. There are so many more that I do not care to waste my time listing them all. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about clinical science here. I don't care about one homosexual's heavily biased interpretation of reality. i want to see an actual clinical science journal describing conversion therapy as "pseudoscience". I'm sure there are some modalties of treatment could fall under the broader category of pseudoscience. However, I don't think the entirety of that therapy method should be tarred with a singular brush. I've read enough of my own to know it's no more pseudoscience than pretty much every aspect of psychology dealing with human behavior and counseling thereof. So, journal, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.88.143 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You were going well, there, until you lost your rag and revealed your ignorance of scientific psychology results. It's a young science - good in parts. (The moderation here is so severe that you will have to click on my number ID to find the true article history).--80.229.223.248 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative medicine?

Should we tell the reader that conversion therapy is considered alternative medicine? The recent changes to the article introduced that idea in the lead section but it is not supported in the article body. Certainly conversion therapy is discussed in psychiatry as "alternative psychiatry" but I don't think that's synonymous with the larger term "alternative medicine".

Equating conversion therapy with alternative medicine can go two ways: people who like alternative medicine for its demonstrable benefit to patients will protest that conversion therapy does not fall under this label. People who think alternative medicine is "medicine that doesn't work" will appreciate the comparison to conversion therapy.

I searched the literature and did not find any kind of main theme of conversion therapy as "alternative medicine". Instead, I found that conversion therapy is considered alternative psychiatry, as in psychiatry that does not work. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the part you dispute. You should have removed that part yourself, instead of starting an editwar! 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method. This fact should be in the lead section. I don't see why there should be an exception for this article. But perhaps there is a way to avoid the word alternative medicine? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources that call conversion therapy alternative medicine? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

By definition (I begin), alternative medicine (I continue), has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Dominus Vobisdu, we have reliable sources for that: see the defenition of alternative medicine. Sceptre, the definition of alternative medicine is that it is not founded on evidence gathered using the scientific method. It leaves in the middle wheter it works or not. I agree with Binksternet, that it can go two ways. But it is important that we put this fact about the scientific method in the lead. Any suggestions on word choice? 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll repeat my question: What reliable sources (plural) can you provide that demonstrate that the specific words "alternative medicine" are COMMONLY used to describe conversion therapy. We don't get to apply definitions on our own. That would be original research. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization

I wonder if someone more familiar with a lot of the nuance in this article than me might consider reorganizing some sections to make it clearer which parts refer to conversion therapy for gender identity versus conversion therapy for sexual orientation. For example, the APA's 2009 strong condemnation of conversion therapy focused on sexual orientation. It strikes me that a complexity of this article is that many of the people doing the therapy view these 2 sides of conversion therapy as one and the same. But the people speaking out against it on the other hand and researching it have to study the effects of this "treatment" on 2 different populations. By lumping both types together in the whole article in becomes difficult to read since 2 related but not identical concepts are presented together. Lyo (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried reorganizing, but a user (with a history of editwars and attacks on anonymous contributions) keeps reverting my attempts to improve the article. I will start a dispute resolution requests. 143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is controversial topic. I suggest that you propose edits here and seek consensus. A lot of discussion and compromise has taken place here to arrive at a balanced view of the subject. Your contributions are welcome, but please don't try to force them into the article when other editors are objecting.- MrX 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I added references, as requested. I then asked to contribute instead of reverting. I asked to correct my spelling and/or grammar. I asked to only remove the disputed part. But there was still nothing on the talkpage. The person reverting was not objecting, because that person did not write anything on the talkpage. I have seen no arguments, thats why it was not clear which part was disputed. How can one reorganize when people keep attacking anonymous IPs?143.176.62.228 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reorganization is a mess, and I reverted it as the mess that it is. And if you keep reverting to that version, you will be WP:Blocked for WP:Edit warring. Before I reverted you, you were repeatedly reverted by Binksternet, and MrX. Enough reverting from you! One more revert from you, and I will report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard or at WP:ANI. The same applies if you are this editor. Like I stated when I reverted you, the lead is supposed to summarize the article...per WP:Lead. While the lead needs to be cut, it should not be cut as drastically as you cut it. It should adequately summarize the content of the article, including any prominent controversies. And the fact that conversion therapy is overwhelmingly about converting non-heterosexual identities to a heterosexual identity should be especially clear in the lead.

On a side note: If you followed me to this article from the Age disparity in sexual relationships article after our discussion, then take note that I do not respond kindly to WP:Stalking unless it is someone I want WP:Stalking me, and that I will report WP:Stalking at WP:ANI. If you start showing up at articles that I edit, do keep that in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to start fights with argumentum ad hominem and start contributing or adding something to the disuccion instead. I have not cut any relevant pieces out, I just made a better summary and moved text around. Instead of reverting you can also help improve the lead, or just inform me of the pieces you do not agree with. If you keep reverting, I will report you.

And on your site note: I do not care what you report, I will report you too. You are harrashing me with your personal attacks (this is the second article you are doing it in). You have no right to tell me what articles I can edit and which I can't. Now stay ontopic! 143.176.62.228 (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

To respond to the IP's responses to me above would be fruitless, but I have responded to the IP on my talk page, and the IP is currently blocked. As seen on the IP's talk page, he or she has also threatened to discard the 143.176.62.228 address so that he or she can continue editing WP:Disruptively. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Very bad article

First of all the article seems to imply that teaching acceptance of gender variance as something that doesn't need to be fixed is the same thing as trying to get someone to unlearn their gender behaviors and become more/less feminine. Which it is not, it is completely different. It also leaves out other more common forms of conversion therapy known as sex reassignment where the patient's body is changed to resemble the opposite sex. Sex and gender are not the same thing. They don't call it gender reassignment. Gender reassignment is what you are calling reparative therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits here

I am disappointed that this edit was not reverted promptly. It was presumably well-intentioned, but the text it added ("Although psychoanalysts such as Haldeman and Bieber support conversion therapy, their approach is not supported by the broader psychoanalytic community") was extremely misleading. Douglas Haldeman is not a psychoanalyst, and he is a critic of conversion therapy, not a supporter, making the material added a serious violation of BLP. Anyone in doubt on this point should simply read Haldeman's work, for example, his article "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy for Gay Men and Lesbians: A Scientific Examination" in Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, or look at his website here. I note that recent edits have also expanded the definition of conversion therapy to, "a range of treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, or to convince a transgender person to give up their gender identity and instead identify with the gender they were assigned at birth". I understand the reasons for mentioning transgender issues, but this information does need a proper citation. Otherwise, it could be considered original research and need to be removed. I would prefer that there be discussion first, but if no one is going to provide an acceptable source stating that attempts to make a transgender person "identify with the gender they were assigned at birth" are conversion therapy I will eventually remove that claim. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Only controversial in recent years

The lede starts out by saying that conversion therepy is controversial and has been critisized in the united states and other countries (which is true). however i think it should say something like "in modern times" or "in the last x decades" because it wasn't critisized heavily until recently, and if we're going to open with the fact that it is critisized we should mention that. Thank you! EDIT: i forgot, i can change it myself! so i did 139.62.30.188 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pulling this out of the archive because someoen reverted my change. if no one responds im going to put it back, since I feel that the lede should make clear that conversion therepy has a long history of use and has not always been considered a crackpot theory 79.243.157.33 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not use the term "crackpot." It does mention appropriate criticism from reliable sources. I believe it would do a disservice to readers to say that conversion therapy only recently became controversial; the first thing readers need to know is the current status of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead doesnt say crackpot, thats my words. that said, why shouldnt we mention the history of the subject? the way it is now gives the impresion that this has never been viewed as a real science: in fact, as it is now, the majority of the lead is devoted to expalining why conversion therepy is wrong/stupid/crackpot. dont get me wrong, by the way: im definately not in favor of conversion therepy. but i feel like the lead could be better balanced overall. start with a few sentaces giving a major overview (what conversion thereoy is, that it was common but now is viewed as harmful, etc.) and then move the paragraph about how bad it is down below 79.243.157.33 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC) (same person, dynamic IP)

You added text without explaining how it was supported by the sources used. Please don't do that (you might want to see WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR). The changes you made were quite unnecessary and unhelpful. You seem to want the lead to say something like, "Conversion therapy used to be accepted but now it isn't", but that definitely isn't appropriate. The lead needs to clearly convey the current status of the subject. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

your right, i apologize. i should have sourced that. that said: yes, i do think the lead should say something like "Conversion therapy used to be accepted but now it isn't". How does that not convey the current status of the subject? its only a few extra words and it clearly says that it is no longer accepted, particularly when you consider that the entire rest of the paragraph is about nothing but why conversion therepy is wrong.

In fact, the current first paragraph has one sentance defining conversion therepy, followed by nine sentances explaining why its bad. Obviously, the first paragraph should say that conversion therepy is no longer accepted, and that it is harmful. But shouldnt it also say soemthing about the history of conversion therepy, the techniques used, where it is still accepted, where it is outlawed, etc? Those things are also part of the current status of conversion therepy. 79.243.143.191 (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Describing the past history of conversion therapy is irrelevant to explaining its current status. I see no reason for the lead to say that conversion therapy was formerly accepted, and it is irrelevant what you want the lead to say if you have no suitable sources to use. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

CT as RT?

Repairative therapy is a specific (Psychoanalytical) type of CT. It's not another name of CT... therefore I am surprised by the last edit. Ben-Natan (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinion not based on reliable sources is not relevant. Sources - which I can provide as needed - show that "reparative therapy" is indeed used as a synonym for conversion therapy. See, for example, the American Psychiatric Association's "Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)", which can be found through a simple Google search. You are perfectly right that the term "reparative therapy" is sometimes also used as a term for one particular kind of conversion therapy; that, however, does not justify your edit, which in the absence of consensus you should not repeat. See WP:BRD. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I think your tone is a bit aggressive here and it would be better to sweeten it up. second, could you please quote from the document the sentence that says clearly that the APA regard them the same?... Ben, Ben-Natan (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that "the APA regard them the same", whatever that means. I said that the two terms are often used as synonyms, which you will find out very quickly if you read the statement from the APA and similar statements from other professional bodies. I could provide quotes if necessary, but surely you are capable of finding such documents for yourself? As I said, all it takes is a quick Google search. You will also probably find that they are used as sources in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Again you are cynical, it does nothing but to ruin the conversation. To have a more direct conversation, please quote the exact phrase, from that document, that "regard them as synonyms". Ben-Natan (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in having a conversation with you for the sake of having a conversation. Even the title of the document I mentioned makes it clear that it uses "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" as synonyms. I suggest you read it. It can be found here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Me neither, it's Okay. The title doesn't state they are synonyms it says or (this does not prove they are synonyms - on the same levels of interpretation one could say it means that their aim is to emphasis that the reparative type does indeed included there). you interpret the headline as you like... I suggest you'll come with a better claim than that. Correct me if I'm wrong but you can quote it from somewhere in the document. Ben-Natan (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ben-Natan, to support your first assertion, that reparative therapy is a specific kind of conversion therapy, I would have expected to see one or more reference links in your post. Otherwise your personal assertion has no leverage here. Coming to this question as a relative outsider, I searched the interwebs and found that RT and CT are used synonymously quite a lot. CNN for instance: "Supporters of 'conversion' or 'reparative' therapy believe the treatment is effective..." Dallas Morning News assumes the synonym: "Medical groups firmly denounce the activity, known as reparative therapy or conversion therapy, saying it can be psychologically harmful." HRC too: "so-called 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy." Newsweek is more explicit: "Reparative therapy—more often called 'conversion therapy' in the scientific literature..." Time magazine quotes the American Psychiatric Association which made a statement opposing "any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder, or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation." With all these sources equating the two terms, you will have to show us a pretty conclusive document that separates them. Binksternet (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ben-Natan is quite correct that the term "reparative therapy", as used by proponents of reparative therapy, does refer to a specific kind of conversion therapy, and is not a synonym for conversion therapy in general. That does not contradict the fact that "reparative therapy" and "conversion therapy" are often used as synonyms by opponents of conversion therapy. Wikipedia is not the place to debate the rights or wrongs of that usage. Removing the mention of "reparative therapy" from the lead is both unhelpful and unjustified. Ben-Natan's arguments are descending into tendentiousness, and I think there is no further point in making lengthy responses. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I had no arguments but to show the false analogy and the confusion of this usage as synonyms. Wikipedia could well help to fix such mistakes and the tendentiousness is trying to avoid it. Because there seems to be an agreement here that all of these people confuse two different terms, the discussion is to be if Wiki is suitable to lower the chance of this mistake to occur, and I think it is. Ben-Natan (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not know, nor at this stage do I care, what you think "the false analogy" is. You have presented no arguments of significance. Your opinion about the correctness or incorrectness of using "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" as synonyms is fortunately not relevant. See WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:VERIFY. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes a biased person miss the argument about such mistake. Ben-Natan (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

NARTH still exists

This good faith edit, which I have just reverted, implies that 'NARTH is now known as "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity".' I don't know what that idea is based upon, but it is incorrect. NARTH still exists and has a website (narth.com), and looking at their website it appears that NARTH is part of the Alliance; it has not changed its name to "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Somedifferentstuff has made major changes to the lead without discussion and seems intent on edit warring them into the article as visible here and here. He has altered the lead to read, "Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a type of sexual orientation change effort." The change is original research, ruled out by WP:NOR. It is unacceptable to add such material, even if someone thinks it is a "no-brainer." Calling something a "no-brainer" is not an excuse for simply making something up. Various reliable sources have provided definitions of conversion therapy, but not one of them, to my knowledge, support the statement that Somedifferentstuff wants to add. I am familiar with the source Somedifferentstuff added in the second of the two diffs above ("Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation"), and it definitely does not say that conversion therapy is a type of SOCE. The actual expression "conversion therapy" is used only a few times. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(Interjected) -- Wow, I've come across obnoxious editors before but you've been here for awhile. Anyways, you seem really upset about my change to the first sentence and are edit-warring [2] to make a point (not helpful) -- Here is my change [3] and here is the source

Page 22 of the source supports my change to the first sentence, which I assume is why it is being used in the main article. Anyways, here is the quote,

"The pathologizing psychiatric and psychological conception of homosexuality and concomitant efforts to alter sexual orientation through psychoanalytic and behavior therapy were prevalent through the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Although behavior therapy emerged in the 1960s, adding a different set of techniques to psychotherapy, the goals of SOCE did not change."

I'm not going to edit war with you so if you're determined on leaving the material out then so be it. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Regarding this, I have wondered (meaning before these latest edits) why Wikipedia needs both a Conversion therapy article and a Sexual orientation change efforts article, but then I reasoned that the Sexual orientation change efforts article is the umbrella topic article for the matter; some of the types listed in that article, especially biological engineering, are not likely to be considered conversion therapy in the strict since of what therapy means. Plus, the conversion therapy topic concerns a lot of historical aspects.

Anyway, yes, we should have WP:Reliable sources directly supporting the material in this article, Somedifferentstuff. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I'd appreciate your feedback on the source I provided above. Regarding the Sexual orientation change efforts article, you are correct in that it is the umbrella. Conversion therapy is only one of the items that falls under that umbrella. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff, you are the one who chose to initiate an edit war. When your changes were reverted, you should have immediately taken the issue to the talk page for discussion, not simply restored the same edits. The bottom line is that if you want the article to say that conversion therapy is a type of SOCE, then you need a source that actually states, in so many words, that conversion therapy is a type of SOCE. Clearly, you do not have such a source. I am familiar with the source you added, and it simply doesn't support the claim you added. You claim above that Sexual orientation change efforts is the "umbrella" and conversion therapy one of the items that falls under it; that is your personal interpretation only. One could equally well say they are different terms for the same thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass reversions are disruptive and you should know better. Regarding the first sentence, I've provided sourcing above but you apparently can't discern it. I'm sure there are many more supporting sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Restoring your changes immediately after they are reverted and without any discussion is disruptive and you should know better. Same goes for adding original research. You apparently cannot discern that your source quite simply does not support the material you added to the article. Does it say that conversion therapy is a type of SOCE? No, Somedifferentstuff, it does not. Frankly I doubt you will find any source stating that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not being able to discern sourcing that isn't spelled out in black and white falls on you, not me. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. WP:NOR is intended to prevent exactly the type of thing you are doing. It makes no difference how reasonable you think your position is. Adopting a patronizing tone toward other editors is not a substitute for argument and does not help you make your case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol, the source supports the material and there is no OR violation. The fact that you can't see that isn't my responsibility. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of what "LOL" means. It stands for laughing out loud. Apparently you find this amusing. I, in contrast, find nothing amusing about your attempt to add original research, based on your groundless interpretation of a source, to this article. Evidently we are essentially different in this respect. Unless you have anything further of substance to say, I suggest that you hold back from further comments. Other editors need to give their views. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

honking confusing lead

the lead goes on at length about how the therapies are bad and condemned by any sensible person - yes, quite right, i assume - but by the end of the lead i have no clue what the fuck these therapies are. Are they voluntary? Coercive? Self-directed? What??? They use medication? how about the article tells us actually about the 'conversion' or 'reparation' process, so people get an actual summary of what it is. the lead of an article is not for listing all the bad things about the issue. even an article on the Holocaust is going to actually outline what the Holocaust was, and then just have one paragraph for evaluation. it wouldn't have one sentence on what it is then three paragraphs saying how evil it is. i have no clue what gay conversion therapy is about (going to read the article now) or who wrote this article, but take this for what it's worth. [note, i can imagine this is a contested topic so it might have been difficult to get a consensus and stuff, but this is just my unvarnished feedback from a disinterested reader who just wanted to find out about this thing after Pres. obama's announced announcement.] Happy monsoon day 00:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but while you complain that the lead is confused, I find your talk comment above to be confused. I simply can't make out exactly what you are complaining about or how you think the lead should be changed. Incidentally, I find the edit you made here to be unnecessary and unconstructive. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Happy. The article is about conversion therapy, so the lead should say what conversion therapy is. It doesn't. We only find out in the theories and techniques section. Maproom (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead states clearly enough what conversion therapy is - techniques used in attempts to convert gay people to heterosexuality. The complaint is baseless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Should not be in pseudoscience category

I don't think this article belongs in the pseudoscience category. There are a number of studies such as this one that find that conversion therapy is often effective. At most, this article belongs in the Medical controversies category. Just because some people don't like conversion therapy, doesn't mean that it's pseudoscience. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Weak source. There's no dispute among reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't much care whether the pseudoscience category is included or not, but to help discussion, it would be good to state for the record what the sources are that do call conversion therapy a pseudoscience. It should be remembered that those who do not consider conversion therapy pseudoscience would be more likely to ignore the issue than to argue explicitly against the pseudoscience label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article, as written before my edits, is clearly biased. The article labels supporters of conversion therapy as "fundamentalist" and the article labels conversion therapy as "pseudoscience."

Such language reflects value judgments about conversion therapy -- these value judgments violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If Wikipedia labels conversion therapy as pseudoscience, this shows that Wikipedia has a liberal agenda.

One of the editors who reverted my edits was User:Roscelese. On Roscelese's user page, she identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian. Roscelese is clearly biased and not neutral. Also, Roscelese claims I cited a "weak source" in support of the argument that conversion therapy works. The source I cited was the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse study, which was the most extensive study ever done on the results of conversion therapy.

To be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, conversion therapy should not be listed under the pseudoscience category.70.128.120.202 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"Conversion therapy works and gay people are inherently less neutral than straight people" is not an actionable neutrality dispute. I suggest you revert your disruptive edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that gay people are inherently less neutral than straight people. However, since you are LGBT, it violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy to edit articles relating to LGBT topics. See here, where an editor who was Catholic was told that, it violated Wikipedia's COI policy if he edited articles "related to Catholicism." 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that conversion therapy is pseudoscience, then we're going to reflect that. I don't see any need for a POV tag based on what 70.128 has written. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

But do reliable sources say that conversion therapy supporters are "fundamentalist"? That's name-calling, and I'm reverting that. As for the pseudoscience claim, see the discussion on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources support the language in the article, which actually says that the "highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other religious organizations". It's already referenced but see also [4] and [5]. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with that language "fundamentalist Christians and other religious groups." Many religious groups (Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical Christian) support conversion therapy. Why does the article single out "fundamentalist" by name? The way that is written, is like saying "The highest-profile supporters of low taxes are the Ku Klux Klan and other political groups" or "The highest-profile supporters of civil rights laws are Communists and other political groups." The article looks biased. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet the language is an accurate reflection of the sources already mentioned. Scrubbing the term "fundamentalist" from the article is not going to reduce bias. The opposite really. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)