Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 22

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conversion therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701171455/http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-10085.html to http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-10085.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conversion therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123004221/http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf to http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160209095649/http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/Conversion%20therapy.pdf to http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/Conversion%20therapy.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123004221/http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf to http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Shidlo and Schroeder study
There have recently been attempts to remove mention of a study critical of conversion therapy from the article. I have had to restore mention of the study a number of times now, mostly recently here. The two accounts involved in attempting to excise mention of the study are Jeffmitch1989 and RpNJ. Jeffmitch1989 is a brand new account, but RpNJ has been active for several years and should know perfectly well that controversial edits such as this require discussion on the talk page. Actually, beyond that, RpNJ should know perfectly well that attempting to remove mention of a study critical of conversion therapy is outright disruptive and stands little to no chance of success. Still, if you want to make your case, RpNJ, feel free. You are going to have to do better than vague comments in edit summaries such as, "Shidlo is not objective", however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you FreeKnowledgeCreator

The conversion therapy page inappropriately lists the Shidlo study as if it were a representative sample. This is an error and the study itself was never intended to be a representative sample. Shidlo and Schroeder themselves state this very clearly within the study itself on the very first page of their own study. Shidlo and Schroeder's study is misused to imply that it sought a random sample of subjects; it did not. In fact, the authors advertised for subjects in gay political publications with an ad that said, "Help Us Document the Harm!" The authors further reemphasized here in page 249 that the study "not provide information on the incidence and prevalence of failure, success, harm, help, or ethical violations in conversion therapy"' doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.249

Shidlo, Ariel; Schroeder, Michael (2002a), "Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers’ Report", Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (3): 249–259, doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.3.249


 * What you are claiming about the article is factually incorrect. Nowhere in the section on the study does it state that it had a representative sample. The words "representative sample" are nowhere used. Even if there were some kind of inaccuracy in the article, you could have simply corrected it by some appropriate means, instead of outright removing all mention of the study, which is disruptive, as well as futile, as you should realize. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator I apologize for failing to discuss this here before making my previous edits. I will go to the Talk page first for any article edits going forward.

Since the study itself states that it is very small non-representative sample from a very biased source, why is the study included here in the first place? If it is to remain included, should it not at least clarify that this was a non-representative sample and explain how the participants were selected? It should at least include the Shildo's own statement from page 249 which states that the study does "not provide information on the incidence and prevalence of failure, success, harm, help, or ethical violations in conversion therapy"  Thank you, RPNJ|talk
 * Suggestion: You both should be looking for third-party sources about the study if you wish to discuss its import and limitations. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * RPNJ, your question about why the study is "included here in the first place" is naive. There is no rule that a study has to be beyond criticism for it to be mentioned here. If there were, then the Spitzer study should not be mentioned here either, since obviously it received plenty of criticism. If any study receives significant attention and is discussed in the literature, that is sufficient reason for mentioning it. Otherwise, the article would fail to give proper coverage of its topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Techniques prior to 1981
The third paragraph of the article is somewhat misleading and certainly misplaced.

"Techniques used in conversion therapy prior to 1981 in the United States and Western Europe included ice-pick lobotomies;[3][4][15][16][17][18] chemical castration with hormonal treatment;[19] aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals"; "nausea-inducing drugs ... administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli"; and masturbatory reconditioning."

Since this does not reflect any practices currently allowed. These practices were part of the overall history of psychotherapy not unique to homosexuality. I recommend moving this paragraph to the History segment of the article and adding additional elaboration and references: Aversion techniques were not developed for treated homosexuality and as the article already states they have not been used in any modern variations of "conversion therapy." Clinical aversive techniques were experimentally introduced in the 1930's and were applied to a variety of conditions, including unwanted homosexual attractions (McBride, 1976; Rachman & Teasdale, 1969)

Beginning as early as 1935, aversive techniques were among many behavioral therapies used in the treatment of unwanted sexual attractions and were employed in the treatment of impotence, frigidity, transvestic fetishes, masochism, exhibitionism, and several other fetishisms and paraphilias. . Such approaches were used in both clinical and experimental settings. In academic institutions, aversive treatments were used with full disclosure of the experimental nature of the treatment, never coerced and provided only with the full consent of those who participated in this form of behavioral therapy. Such treatments were discontinued as many other alternative and less invasive interventions were made available in the treatment field.

--Jeffmitch1989 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conversion therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070220184835/http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm to http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/sexualhealth/call.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090413091827/http://narth.com/menus/goals.html to http://narth.com/menus/goals.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160825194841/http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/gay-conversion-therapy-to-be-banned-in-victoria-20303.html to http://gaynewsnetwork.com.au/news/gay-conversion-therapy-to-be-banned-in-victoria-20303.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Vote by european parliament in March 2018
In March 2018, the European parliament voted in a historic vote by 435 to 109 members of parliament to stop conversion therapies in memberstates of the European Union. --Liseuropas (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction
in the paragraph of historical part it has been said that, The history of conversion therapy can be divided broadly into three periods But I have found that only two period. And in the first paragraph of the main article I have found that medical bodies warn that. But I think it would be medical books. Fahim fanatic (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The three periods are early Freudian, mainstream, and disavowal. Medical bodies is also right, meaning professional bodies. Fribbler (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Inheritance of Shame
Pgajdics just added the following entry to the bibliography. I'm assuming the editor is the author. I checked, and it seems to have received favorable independent reviews last year, but I'm not sure it belongs in the bibliography. Thoughts? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gajdics, Peter (2017), The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir, California: Brown Paper Press, ISBN 978-1-941932-08-7
 * It was just added to the External Links section by an IP. I'm removing it, because it definitely doesn't belong there, but I'd really like some other thoughts about whether it belongs in the article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit reversion
FreeKnowledgeCreator just added the following entry to the bibliography. I'm assuming the editor is the author. I checked, and it seems to have received favorable independent reviews last year, but I'm not sure it belongs in the bibliography. Thoughts? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gajdics, Peter (2017), The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir, California: Brown Paper Press, ISBN 978-1-941932-08-7
 * It was just added to the External Links section by an IP. I'm removing it, because it definitely doesn't belong there, but I'd really like some other thoughts about whether it belongs in the article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Bias article
This article is biased and not written from a neutral POV. The introduction should not lead by declaring it pseudoscience but simply explain the therapy. However in the section about opponents of the theory it is ok to state that they argue it is a pseudoscience and explain their reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.64.155 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed.SunCrow (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The claim that it is pseudoscience is supported by reliable sources in the article. You cant put content in article based on your personal opinions, be more NPOV yourself and stick to what science and sources actually provide. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * What Shellwood said, and furthermore, the article remains in the pseudoscience category, and retains the pseudoscience template at the bottom of the page. That this is pseudoscience has already been scientifically concluded, therefore including it in the lead is not violating NPOV. The page has now been semi-protected for a week to encourage discussion here rather than edit-warring on the article. Home Lander (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Bringing up other editors' personal opinions—especially when those opinions haven’t been expressed—is unnecessary. The issue is what it means to maintain NPOV and an encyclopedic tone. The article should present both sides of this controversial issue, noting that mainstream mental health organizations agree that conversion therapy is ineffective, but also noting that there is a minority perspective on the question. The article should not include the term “pseudoscience” or be categorized that way. It’s a blatant NPOV problem.SunCrow (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You won't find much agreement for that view. For the record, the article was placed within category "Pseudoscience" following a discussion among administrators at WP:ANI. You can find the discussion here. See also the addition of the discretionary sanctions notice here. You may well believe that categorizing Conversion therapy as pseudoscience is "a blatant NPOV problem" but the admin corps evidently disagrees with you, and overturning that will be next to impossible. Please find something more constructive to do with your time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I maintain my position, and I'm in no need of input on time management from any editor on this page. Keep the snark to yourself. SunCrow (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your maintaining your position is not relevant unless you are proposing to make corresponding alterations to the article. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improving the article, after all, not for discussion about its topic. If you simply remove the "pseudo-science" description of conversion therapy without discussion, someone will likely promptly restore it. Trying to alter the article's description of conversion therapy as pseudo-science is almost certainly going to fail, so you should find something more constructive to do. This, if I may say so, is an informed comment from an editor with years of experience. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, not interested in the snark or the instructions, regardless of how many years of experience you have. The proposed alteration to the article was quite clear. SunCrow (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is correctly described and categorized as pseudoscience, and doing so is not biased, nor does it violate WP:NPOV. If someone wants to present scientific sources to the contrary, then we can consider representing that viewpoint if it is a significant minority viewpoint. Otherwise, a couple of editors complaining about it with no countervailing evidence is not going to change anything. By the way, this has been discussed here many times before with the same outcome.- MrX 12:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, but not surprising. SunCrow (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This unbalanced propagandistic article is why Wikipedia itself is not (and may never be) a reputable source of academic citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.17.167 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, this one article? That puts an impressive amount of weight on such a small portion of this cast project. Luckily, becoming an academically-citable source has never been among the goals of Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If the goal of Wikipedia is the promote propaganda, then it is indeed successful! The fact that anyone in the world can edit this or any Wiki article for that matter, illustrates the fact that non-experts, and those with heavily biased agendas can hijack a page such as this one for their own ends.  This piece is but one example of such a bias, and it enforces the cautionary note which experts throughout the world understand, namely, don't trust everything you read on the internet, and that very much includes Wikipedia.  Because of propaganda like this article real research must be done well apart from Wikipedia, which is unfortunate because the internet was originally conceived as a research tool.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.17.167 (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia merely cites and summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic and journalistic sources that happen to not let theocratic politics get in the way of empirical observation. Go whine and moan elsewhere because it's not our fault that mainstream academia has figured out that conversion therapy is superstitious torture.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"not discussed" revert
could you elaborate on the issue with this? "Not discussed" alone doesn't really help (standard editing procedure via wp:bold, etc.). In other words, unless there is consensus against the change, the "this hasn't been discussed or agreed upon" is secondary to the specific reason why you are reverting/disagreeing. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think your change was well-intentioned, Rhododendrites, but unfortunate in its effects. I recently had to revert an edit at the NARTH article that altered the lead to make it state that NARTH advocates "pseudo-scientific conversion therapy". I understand that the point of that edit was to imply that conversion therapy is inherently pseudo-scientific, but that is not its actual effect. Grammatically, it implies that "pseudo-scientific conversion therapy" is one kind of conversion therapy, and that there might be other kinds of conversion therapy that are not pseudo-scientific. Your edit here suffers from essentially the same problem. It makes the lead begin, "Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual" - again, that implies that there might be a "psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual" that is not pseudo-scientific and as such would not fall under the definition of conversion therapy. The criticism of conversion therapy is clearer and stronger in the stable version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand why the phrase "pseudoscientific conversion therapy" could imply an alternative, but that's pretty radically different from the sentence you reverted: "Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual". "x [is] y" does not leave room for "x [that is not] y" like the other example does.
 * Is it the words that follow? ("...or spiritual counseling...")? In other words, is the issue that "pseudoscientific" could be seen as only modifying "psychological treatment," and not "spiritual counseling"? If the only alternative to the pseudoscientific psychological treatment is "spiritual counseling," I don't think it's a huge problem that pseudoscientific could be interpreted as not modifying "spiritual counseling" directly, since that's more nonscientific anyway.
 * The reason for my edit is because I saw a snippet that drew from Wikipedia to define conversion therapy and didn't get as far as the "pseudoscience" line of the lead. Since reliable sources on the subject are pretty well united, as far as I'm aware, it seems it makes the most sense per WP:FRINGE to include pseudoscience in its primary definition (the first sentence). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * x2 -- you've clarified while I was responding. Thanks. I started to type an even longer response here, but for the sake of simplicity let me first ask: is the issue "a"? I.e. "conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment" vs. the status quo "conversion therapy is psychological treatment..."? Would "conversion therapy is pseudoscientific psychological treatment..." really be any more ambiguous than the current wording with regard to alternatives? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The wording you added suffers from exactly the problem I pointed out and your reply unfortunately does not address the point. This is a very serious issue. Please do not make major changes to the lead that weaken the criticism of conversion therapy. The wording "Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual" leaves open the possibility that there might be psychological treatments or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation that are not pseudo-scientific and as such would not be technically defined as conversion therapy. The stable version does not suffer from this problem. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ? This is almost exactly what you just said, which I just replied to. Since we both seem to want the same thing (to be as clear as possible that this is a pseudoscience), I'm going to go ahead and post to FNB to get another opinion. Hope you don't mind. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Rhododendrites, I saw your reply. Unfortunately, as I explained, your reply does not address the issue properly. It is a piece of borderline babble that suggests that you simply have not understood the objection I'm making. What did your reply consist of? You said that, ""x [is] y" does not leave room for "x [that is not] y" like the other example does." That is not an intelligible or sensible response. Using pseudo-mathematical language is not a substitute for a real, meaningful argument; if you have a valid point, then rephrase it in proper language. Apparently, you were denying that the language you used suffers from the same objection as the expression "pseudo-scientific conversion therapy"; you are wrong, it does. Sorry to be so blunt, but we do need to communicate honestly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * FreeKnowledgeCreator I agree with Rhododendrites. There is nothing wrong with their language and per WP:PSCI Pseudoscience is to be clearly labeled as such.  The argument that labeling anything pseudoscience implies there is an alternate scientific version is utter nonsense and if we applied that standard, no article would have the word pseudoscience.  For example, check the wording of any articles in CAT:PSEUDOSCIENCE instead of continually reverting without making a suggestion.  I would offer a simple non ambiguous sentence like "Conversion therapy is widely viewed by the science community as pseudoscience"  in the lead and support it with citations and be done with it.  Problem fixed. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there is something wrong with the language Rhododendrites used. I explained as much clearly. The problem with his edit is essentially the same as the problem with this edit at the NARTH article, which made the article state that NARTH offers "pseudoscientific conversion therapy". Whoever made that edit probably thought that they were strengthening the criticism of conversion therapy by clearly labeling conversion therapy pseudoscientific. If they had thought about it carefully, they would have realized that the edit weakens criticism of conversion therapy by implying that "pseudoscientific conversion therapy" is one kind of conversion therapy, as if there were another kind that is not pseudoscientific. You write that, "The argument that labeling anything pseudoscience implies there is an alternate scientific version is utter nonsense and if we applied that standard, no article would have the word pseudoscience". That comment is confused and simply suggests that you don't understand what I'm saying. I have a problem with the misleading wording used by Rhododendrites, but no problem at all with the article stating that conversion therapy is pseudoscience. It already states that as it is. The article states that, "Such treatments are controversial, and are a form of pseudoscience" - so there is no need for your proposed addition ("Conversion therapy is widely viewed by the science community as pseudoscience") that says essentially the same thing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So you did not understand what I said, and instead of responding to any part of it at all or asking for clarification, you've repeated yourself and dismissed it as "borderline babble". Stop using the NARTH analogy. It is a straw man argument as it's an entirely different construct. Nobody has suggested calling it "pseudoscientific conversion therapy," for which I could understand the argument that it may imply some alternative that is not pseudoscientific. Here we have "conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment...". I could maybe see your point if it was simply the "a" in the sentence I've added, as I explained above, and I would have no issue at all removing the "a" so that the result is "conversion therapy is pseudoscientific psychological treatment...". Regardless, "pseudoscientific" is not modifying "conversion therapy" such that there's room to interpret it without the modifier. Insofar as it could imply that there is a non-pseudoscientific psychological treatment, etc. -- yes, and you could do that with every adjective/adverb/statement that's not just a simple subject and object (including the status quo). It is strange that you are claiming that I am trying to weaken the claim that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific by making it more prominent and ensuring it shows up as such in snippets, search engines, etc. whereas it does not appear in your preferred version. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll use any analogy I like, Rhododendrites. Your failure to see its point does not make it any less apt. If you need the point repeated, I'll repeat it again: "Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual" leaves 100% open the possibility that there might be a "psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual" that is not pseudoscientific and thus would not technically fall under the definition of conversion therapy. The current wording of the article ("Conversion therapy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Such treatments are controversial, and are a form of pseudoscience)", in contrast, leaves no such possibility. I'm not interested in disentangling comments that don't address the issue. It's enough to note that your muddled comment "Insofar as it could imply that there is a non-pseudoscientific psychological treatment, etc. -- yes, and you could do that with every adjective/adverb/statement that's not just a simple subject and object (including the status quo)" - sees a problem with the status quo where none exists. The current version is perfectly clear that all attempts to change a person's sexual orientation are pseudoscientific. Your version is not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As for your comment, "It is strange that you are claiming that I am trying to weaken the claim that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific" - no, Rhododendrites, I am not claiming that you are trying to weaken the assertion that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. I am claiming that the effect of your edit is to weaken the assertion that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific. I don't doubt that that wasn't at all your intention. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * in contrast, leaves no such possibility - Yes. Of course it does. In exactly the same way you're describing.
 * Using exactly the same logic, "such treatments" leaves room for treatments that are not "such treatments" (and thus not pseudoscience). On the other hand, I would like to change it to be as simple as possible: "conversion therapy is pseudoscientific psychological treatment". Any way you word it using more than the most basic sentences will allow for the possibility of assuming some other possibility exists, so it's important to be as direct as possible. Hence putting it there in the first sentence. It should not be appearing in search engine results and web snippets as simply "psychological treatment". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure neither of us is convincing the other, and I agree with you that the IP's comment is a bit off the mark, so I'm content to let it be until others comment. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The current wording of the article is, "Conversion therapy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Such treatments are controversial, and are a form of pseudoscience". Does that leave room for the possibility that there are forms of psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual that are not pseudo-scientific? No, because "such treatments" logically covers every "psychological treatment or spiritual counseling" mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, and anyone who can read and understand normal written English (the kind of people we write for on English Wikipedia) would realize as much. Your assertion to the contrary (" "such treatments" leaves room for treatments that are not "such treatments" ") shows a failure (I don't know whether it is intentional) to grasp the normal sense of written English. The only way a reasonable person would interpret "such treatments" is as a reference to the treatments mentioned in the first sentence. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with 's reading. The way I read the statement, it states that Conversion Therapy is a psudeoscienece, it doesn't in anyway suggest that there is some other way  of doing the same thing, in fact, in the paragraph below it, it emphasises the first point that it is psuedoscientific and is not supported by the mainstream at all.  I'd say leave it like it was with the psuedoscientic label on it (since we can't call it quakery or hokum in Wikipedia's voice! )  I will point out that FreeKnowledgeCreator's version actually makes

Conversion therapy look legit, since the "psuedoscientific" label is removed upfront and added later. This could actually confuse the reader. I support 's version.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The current version of the lead (the wording of which I am not originally responsible for) begins, "Conversion therapy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Such treatments are controversial, and are a form of pseudoscience." To say that that makes conversion therapy look legitimate is a very unreasonable statement. "Such treatments are a form of pseudoscience" is unambiguous that the theories are not accepted, and it is no less so because it is in the second rather than the first sentence. It is a simple and logical statement, and there is nothing remotely confusing about it. In contrast, the wording you say you prefer ("Conversion therapy is a pseudoscientific psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual") suffers from the problem that it logically leaves open the possibility of a form of "psychological treatment or spiritual counseling intended to change a person's sexual orientation" that is not pseudoscientific and thus would not technically fall under the definition of conversion therapy. Denying or ignoring the point does not make any less valid. I wouldn't have a problem with adding the term "pseudoscience" to the first sentence if someone could work out a way of doing so that does not suffer from the problems that Rhododendrites' version does. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, just for purposes of comparison, even the Astrology article does not use the word "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoscience" in the first sentence of the lead - and no one there seems to think that this somehow portrays astrology as legitimate. It makes sense to see how other articles handle this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, calling it "Psuedoscience" up front establishes it as a fringe belief,  the prefix "Psuedo"  itself ( per WP:PSCI ) means "false"  so, by calling this a psuedoscience right up front, we're stating that it's a false belief, and rightly so, the paragraphs below also support this, so no, calling it a Psuedoscience up front  right away alerts the reader that it's false.  Removing it may give the opposite opinion.  Right now, 2 editors are against your opinion.  I'll wait for the opinions of more, but so far, it looks like the lead should be changed to Rhodendites version.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   12:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead already states clearly that conversion therapy is a pseudo-science. Not including the word "pseudo-science" in the first sentence of the lead does not suggest that conversion therapy is not a pseudo-science. Astrology, to which I drew your attention, is a good article, and provides a nice demonstration of why there is no compelling reason why "pseudo-science" must be inserted in the very first sentence. Its lead begins, "Astrology is the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events." Altering that to "Astrology is the pseudo-scientific study of the movements and relative positions of celestial objects as a means for divining information about human affairs and terrestrial events" would make it suggest that there could be a non-pseudoscientific study of celestial objects as a means of divination. Adding "pseudo-scientific" to the first sentence of the lead in the way you suggest would create an exactly equivalent problem here. I am aware that there is currently no consensus for my preferred version. That doesn't alter the fact that Rhododendrites's preferred wording is confused and would lower the quality of the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for input from WikiProject LGBT studies here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice to you FreeKnowledgeCreator is to revert yourself on the LGBT Wikiproject page as it could be seen as canvassing (specifically the vote-stacking section of that page) due to the likelihood of attracting neutral participants to this discussion from that location being extremely low. Thank you. Edchem's point well taken. I wasn't suggesting that they can't be neutral, I glanced over the content of the dispute and misunderstood the purpose. I thought they were asking for LGBT wikiproject members to take part in a dispute about the subject article in question. My bad. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood canvassing, . FKC had previously requested input at WP:FTN, and got little response, so posted a request to a WikiProject related to the article.  The request specifically invited comment from editors "whatever their views" and so was clearly not biased in nature.  Vote stacking refers to seeking supporters of one's own view, but I fail to see why contributors to the LGBT WikiProject would predominantly have a single view on the positioning of "pseudoscience" at the start of the article.  The facts are not in dispute, and the differences between the versions are essentially stylistic.  FKC's concern about the alternative proposed is that it is open to an incorrect / inaccurate interpretation, not whether or not conversion therapy is pseudoscientific.  Now, FKC could have added equally neutrally-worded notifications to the other interested WikiProjects, but choosing to ask at an active one when the facts to be presented are not disputed seems fair and reasonable to me.  If the dispute had been about whether conversion therapy is pseudoscience, then selectively notifying the LGBT project or the conservatism project would run into potential canvassing issues, I readily admit.  You might also reflect on your own words as suggesting editors from the LGBT WikiProject are very unlikely to be able to participate neutrally is both incorrect and offensive, and I ask that you avoid making generalisations about large groups of editors in the future.  Thank you.  EdChem (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a reasonably experienced editor, I am well aware that it is not only futile, but also against the rules for an editor to pop up at a WikiProject and start demanding that people support him at some dispute that he is engaged in. The note at the LGBT studies project page was carefully worded to be neutral, rather than an "agree with me!" kind of message. It was actually Rhododendrites, not me, who posted on the fringe theories noticeboard. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, speaking as the "other side," I have no problem at all with the post to LGBT WikiProject. Ultimately, FKC and I have the same goal -- we just disagree in our interpretations of the best way to get there. There's no substantial difference in ideology here such that additional comments from that WikiProject (or the fringe noticeboard, or any one of a number of other venues) would be anything but helpful. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: Conversion therapy refers to psychological or spiritual interventions that are intended to alter a person's sexual orientation to heterosexuality, all of which are recognised as pseudoscientific, ineffective and potentially harmful, and controversial.? This brings the term "pseudoscience" into the first sentence, removes the description of conversion therapy as a "treatment" (which it isn't, there is nothing to treat), and avoids FKC's concerns of a potential conversion therapy that is not pseudoscientific. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that suggestion is at least along the right lines. It should be possible to work out a suitable compromise. Regarding the description of conversion therapy as a form of treatment, however, I have to point out that the American Psychiatric Association issued a position stating, in part, "In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes 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 the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." See here. If the APA says it is a treatment, the article can't go against that. WP:NPOV requires that we follow what professional organizations state. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I just removed the word treatment, I didn't offer my perspective in Wikipedia's voice in article space. Similarly, I wouldn't refer to a homeopathic preparation as a "treatment" because the preparation contains nothing capable of a physiological effect beyond the placebo effect.  Anyone, for this article, an alternative: Conversion therapy is an umbrella term referring to various psychological or spiritual interventions, all of which are pseudoscientific, ineffective, and potentially harmful, that claim some degree of success in altering a person's sexual orientation to heterosexuality.  This is less smoothly worded, though it brings "pseudoscience" earlier in the sentence, and "that claim some degree of success in altering" could be more weakly expressed as "that are intended / designed / meant to alter".  It does, however, make clear that all such interventions are pseudoscientific, addressing FKC's concern.  I'm not sure if "to heterosexuality" is essential, either, because if conversion therapy were possible then for any orientation to any other should be possible (sat least in theory). EdChem (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your version, the second one, to be precise, as it describes conversion therapy exactly as it is.  It gets my keep vote! <span style="border:2.5px solid silver;background:black;padding:0.1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; font-family:Papyrus, Georgia, Arial"> Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   12:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to address the main issues, and replacing "treatment" with "intervention" is a good idea. It does feel like it wants to be rearranged so there's not a list-based dependent clause ("all of which ... harmful") breaking up "conversion therapy is an umbrella term referring to various psychological or spiritual interventions ... that claim some degree of success...". I mean it's not a huge problem, but to me something like these examples may read better: (a) "Conversion therapy is an umbrella term referring to various psychological or spiritual interventions that claim some degree of success in altering a person's sexual orientation to heterosexuality, all of which are pseudoscientific, ineffective, and potentially harmful." -- although this again puts the pseudoscientific label later, which is not ideal, or (b) "Conversion therapy is an umbrella term referring to various pseudoscientific, ineffective, and potentially harmful psychological or spiritual interventions that claim some degree of success in altering a person's sexual orientation to heterosexuality." -- although this may be a little clunky at the start, too. There may be others ways as well. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I appreciate your comment. , placing the clause in the middle or the end is a stylistic choice, and there isn't really any "right" answer.  I agree that your (b) is perhaps the natural construction, but it runs into the issue FKC raised about the possibility of non-pseudoscientific interventions existing under an alternative term (reparative therapy, say), which is why I did not suggest that construction.  Given the issue of ensuring pseudoscientific is included in a snippet extract, I tend to the dependent-clause-in-the-middle construction as the best of the idea presented so far, but a superior alternative would be welcome.  EdChem (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Another thought, perhaps: Conversion therapy refers to the controversial and pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation using psychological or spiritual interventions. There is virtually no reliable evidence that sexuality can be controlled or changed and peak medical bodies warn that conversion therapy practices are ineffective and potentially seriously harmful. Nevertheless, advocates and proponents do provide anecdotal reports of so-called "ex-gays" who claim some degree of success in become heterosexual. This gets "pseudoscientific" and "controversial" up front and (I think) avoids the issue FKC has been concerned about. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am neither interested in dictating the exact wording that the lead of this article should use, nor of course in a position to do so. My only interest here recently has been in encouraging other editors not to adopt a wording that is illogical or open to misinterpretation, and your proposed wording does avoid that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

—————————————————————————————

Having the term "pseudoscientific" at the begging of this article is directly counter to WP:NPOV. While it is correct that the APA does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder; they have never condemned the practice of Reparative Therapy or "conversion therapy" itself for self-motivated individuals; nor have they applied the term "pseudoscience" since the practice itself simply uses the same modalities of care that the APA already endorses. Two of the recent past presidents of the APA Robert Perloff, PhD and Nicholas Cummings, PhD have been outspoken in support of therapy for those with unwanted Same-Sex Attraction. The 2008 statement by the 7 member APA panel which is quoted as saying "conversion therapy is potentially harmful" simply restates the general warning that the APA gives for all therapeutic interventions. The report further states that they have found no evidence of any harm specifically attributed to conversion therapy. The APA itself has never used the term "pseudoscience" to refer to "conversion therapy." There are at least 200 licensed mental healthy professionals who practice some form of conversion therapy in the US and most of them are members of the APA. It might be more appropriate instead for the term "pseudoscience" to be used in other sections of the article where there is a lot of emphases on historical behavioral practices and even "Aversion Therapy" which is not specific to homosexuality - although may have been employed for that many decades ago. "Aversion Therapy" has always been completely condemned by all "Ex-Gay Ministries" and organizations such as the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality(NARTH). It is also the counter to the principles of Reparative Therapy which focusses almost exclusively on reducing and eliminating shame. All modern variations of conversion therapy simply use the standard therapeutic practices endorsed by the APA and used by all therapists in general. There is not a separate modality of therapy known as "conversion therapy." The only difference is the goals and beliefs of the individual client and a few theories on origin by some clinical psychologists. --Jeffmitch1989 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "All the major psychological professional bodies in the UK have concluded that conversion therapy is unethical and potentially harmful." That's from one of our cited sources, the "Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK." A similar position paper from the APA said that conversion therapy was never successful and was harmful in some cases. Many respected authors have pointed out the pseudoscience aspects of conversion therapy, including Jeffry G. Ford (widely cited, including in this article), Douglas C. Haldeman (widely cited, including in this article), Canciotto & Cahill, D. Panozzo, M. Forstein, S. Price, D. Riggs and Shidlo, Schroeder & Drescher. I'm in favor of keeping the term "pseudoscience" somewhere in the first sentence. Rather than violating NPOV, I see it as representing the topic as accurately as possible. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet None of those sources use the term "pseudoscience." Rather, the fact they issue address the matter at all speaks to the fact that there is no concenses among professionals on the topic. There are many well respected clinical psychologists who are in good standing with the APA and wholeheartedly support Conversion Therapy. It is certainly appropriate to list the views of those who oppose it as well as their research, but it is unnecessary and petty to insert derogatory term at the beginning of the article - especially since it includes a wide variety of practices and modalities - many of which are completely endorsed by the APA and all similar organizations. --Jeffmitch1989 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Douglas Haldeman's article, which can be found here. It explicitly uses the term "pseudo-science" in its title. I'm sure there are other sources that also call conversion therapy pseudo-science. You can argue over the exact wording of the lead if you wish, but it is just untrue that there are no sources that call conversion therapy pseudo-science; there are. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong in saying "none of those sources" use the term pseudoscience. In fact, all of the authors in my links use it, which is why I chose them. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you FreeKnowledgeCreator I agree that there are some who use that term. The term is still derogatory and not objective. The professional organizations have not used that term in their critiques. It would make sense to cite Douglas Haldeman's article and state that he calls it a "pseudo-science." That is different than beginning the article with the term and inferring that the entire scientific community agrees that any and all modalities are pseudoscience. That is just not accurate. If it was, there would be no need for the article since it would be an irrelevant topic.

How about this revision for the opening:

Conversion therapy is a broad term which is used to describe a variety of practices for individuals seeking to change their sexual orientation using psychological or spiritual interventions. There are variety of opinions within the scientific community on whether sexuality can be controlled or changed. Some medical panels have stated that conversion therapy practices have not been proven to be effective. Many clinicians believe Conversion Therapy to be a "pseudo-science" and warn that the use of therapy to change sexual orientation is potentially harmful. Advocates and proponents provide anecdotal reports of individuals who claim some degree of success in becoming heterosexual.

This keeps the terminology, but links directly to the source in a more objective POV.

--Jeffmitch1989 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is completely pointless to complain that the term "pseudoscience" is "derogatory and not objective". Saying that simply means that you disagree with the term. You are free to disagree with it, but that carries no weight here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't represent the topic neutrally. Of course sexuality can be controlled to some extent; it's the possibility of 180° change in sexuality that is denied by all reliable psychiatric groups. And it's often about others (parents, church) seeking to change individuals rather than the individuals coming forward with the request to change their sexuality. It's more than "many clinicians" who think that conversion therapy is pseudoscience. It's more than "some medical panels" that have said CT is not effective. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed with this edit. "Psudoscience" is an incorrect description. To receive this description it should be shown to be a "statements, beliefs, or practice that is claimed to be both scientific and factual, but is incompatible with the scientific method". Conversion therapy is claimed to proponents be factual, but has no necessary claim to be scientific. It is also not incompatible with the scientific method. It is merely scientifically untestable at present owing to prevailing norms in countries with the ability to make these tests. The evidence in the article suggests (without meeting the standard of a controlled trial) that some of these practices have some effectiveness - even if very limited. CSMR (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet The therapy is never against an individual's will nor something that can ever be forced upon anyone by their parents or anyone else. That is something entirely different and something that all professional psychologists, especially those in Conversion Therapy have consistently opposed. No medical panel has decreed that CT is not effective. They have simply said it has not been fully proven. Most have simply refused to study the topic at all since 1973 when it became politically incorrect. FreeKnowledgeCreator Saying that Conversion Therapy is "pseudoscience" is simply an individual's personal opinion and a clear sign that they have a very emotional aversion to it. If you feel so strongly that the term is relevant, why not simply quote those who make that claim rather than have Wikipedia state it as its own authority? --RpNJ 00:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * RPNJ, you may want to familiarize yourself with basic policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The bottom line is that if reliable sources call conversion therapy, or any other theory or belief, pseudo-scientific, that is how Wikipedia is obliged to describe the subject. Of course, if there is disagreement in reliable sources, and some sources argue that it isn't pseudo-scientific, then you're quite welcome to produce such sources and argue for changing the article on that basis. Your personal disagreement with the sources carries no weight at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you FreeKnowledgeCreator I do appreciate your patience with me here. I understand the reference to Haldeman's article and his use of the term. He is only one individual in the field though and the APA hasn't actually used the same terminology. It is correct that the there has not been substantial proof of 180 degree changes in orientation - at least not a consensus report. None of them modern versions of this therapy promise anything like that though. The concept of sexual fluidity and the dilemma of bisexuals has the primary focus of much of this therapy and the modalities are the same as all other general psychotherapy. Since these are not a separate modality of therapy, it is confusing to call it "pseudoscience" without claiming that all psychotherapy in general is a "pseudoscience." I will come back with more references for discussion. Thank you. --RpNJ 13:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator Can I ask why Haldeman's article is considered a "reliable source" and authoritative when there are many others in the field who disagree with him? He is only one individual and his personal bias is well documented. He also has admitted that he hasn't even studied this particular therapy but is merely offended by its existence. The founders and leaders of NARTH all have the same academic background and are also in good standing with the APA. I'm not arguing that their views should be considered "objective" or the headline - only pointing out that Haldeman's is an equally biased source. Based on the Arbitration Committee's Decision on the term "peudocience." The only appropriate term for Conversion Therapy is: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. I can provide plenty of peer-reviewed articles to back this up, but I wanted to first understand why Haldeman's opinions have been elevated here above all the others. --RpNJ 13:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Haldeman has been cited extensively by others, which greatly increases the weight we assign to the work. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

reversion deleting other info
Understand why you reverted the psychology infobox and agree, however that reversion also removed a summary of jurisdictions banning conversion therapy to date and a citation in the introduction where one is required. I have added those adjustments back in (with some minor changes), but please let's discuss if you intended to remove those as well. I have also not separated the long intro again but still think it's very lengthy... perhaps there's a better way to do it. Hmmm... &mdash; <tt>ruperttrepur talk </tt> \\ 05:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article is only a summary of the article's topic. It it is not meant to explain everything about it or to include the full details that may be present elsewhere in the article. A complete list of places where conversion therapy has been or may be banned is unnecessary for the lead. It is not clear to me why you believe that an additional citation is required in the lead; you may wish to review WP:LEADCITE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd consider a summary of the jurisdictions that outlaw a claimed therapy in the social/pseudo-psychological/health sphere to be amongst the most important points, which is part of the purpose of the lead. Further, it follows some other leads I've seen on LGBT topics such as Same-sex Marriage. After reading the talk page, it seems users may consider the claim that "'there is virtually no reliable evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and medical bodies warn that conversion therapy practices are ineffective and potentially seriously harmful'" to be contentious, and therefore I added a citation in line to support the point as per the verifiability policy (applicable to leads) advising that "'material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.'" &mdash; <tt>ruperttrepur talk </tt> \\ 07:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your preferred version of the lead mentions that, "Various legal jurisdictions have passed laws directly or indirectly banning conversion therapy, with the practice currently illegal in Argentina, Australia (Victoria), Brazil, Canada (Manitoba, Ontario), China, Ecuador, Fiji, Malta, Samoa, South Africa, Taiwan and United States (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington)." Of course that was a good faith addition, but a long list like that - a list that could well grow longer if more countries or US states restrict conversion therapy, and potentially become quite unwieldy - is inappropriate to the lead. A specific detail like, say, conversion therapy being restricted in Samoa, is appropriate to the main body of the article, but I don't see that it is one of "the most important points" or in any way necessary for the lead. The article on Conversion therapy does not have to follow what other articles do, by the way; see WP:OTHERCRAP. The sentence beginning, "There is virtually no reliable evidence...", was already properly cited. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So, in the spirit of being solution-minded and trying to reach a compromise... do you perhaps support a tally of the number of countries (and separately jurisdictions) that have banned it so far? Or perhaps reducing the list to exclude states which is introduced as "A ban is in force in part/full in..." followed by a country list? I think something that is controversial being increasingly outlawed warrants something more informative than a general statement about regions (as is done effectively in the same-sex marriage article). Would just like to clarify as well- I wasn't suggesting that we must follow the example given, but I was suggesting the list had worked well in other articles on topics related to the same category. It is probably especially necessary here because of a lack of relevant infobox. I can't see any citation for the beginning of the sentence you referenced but it's possible it was removed and hasn't been reverted. <tt>ruperttrepur talk </tt> \\ 12:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

History section fails to discuss the practice
I think the History section needs to be retitled, or expanded with other material. Currently, it isn't really about the history of Conversion therapy, but rather about the theoretical underpinnings. As explained in the Europe section, it's about the theories of S. Freud, Ferenczi, A. Freud, and Klein, followed by a bit of a jump from 1932 to 2018 in the next section. There's nothing about the actual practice of it. One notable case, that of Alan Turing post WW II, would certainly be worth a mention here.

Alternatively, if it was never intended to be about the actual practice, then it should be entitled "Theory" or some such. Even then, it should be expanded with a "Practice" section. Or possibly the existing sections could simply be expanded with more about the practice of Conversion therapy. Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Potentially harmful
A fairly minor point, stylistic mostly: the phrase "potentially harmful" occurs twice in the lead paragraph. It's supported, so no problem with verifiability, it just sounds a bit awkward having it there twice. Wanted to point it out, to see what others think. I'm not sure anything should be done about it, myself; I'm generally an opponent of elegant variation for its own sake. If that's what the sources say in each case, then perhaps so be it. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good spot. How's this? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Triple bypass surgery has its risks as well, but also has benefits that hopefully outweigh them. "Harmful" has another connotation here, imho. I guess I'm not too keen on it; still trying to come up with something. Try again? Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake; my post above was responding to the change that actually belonged to, which I hadn't noticed and I assumed was yours when I added my previous comment. Sorry for the muddle! Mathglot (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)