Talk:Troubled teen industry

Reads like an argumentative essay

Should probably be completely rewritten or merged with the pages "wilderness therapy" and/or "therapeutic boarding school". 2604:3D08:2482:6300:DF7E:43A4:1D5A:FD15 (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

POV content

Uncited, "Once abuse begins, it is difficult for parents to become aware of malpractice, as measures are put in place to ensure children stay as long as possible for the financial benefits. Children are made out to be manipulative if they try to expose the program to parents, and consequences (revoking of contact, extension of stay, physical punishment) are put in place to limit connection to the outside world. Correspondence is heavily monitored, and participants are (more often than not) forced to smile in photos. " Saintstephen000 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintstephen000 (talk • contribs) 02:16, January 6, 2023 (UTC)

as noted previously, we are unsatisfied with this prose and find it to be seemingly written from a biased pov. as an example, calling enrolled minor children, clients enrolled by their parents, "survivors", in descriptive text.

we have insufficient time to deal with this article mess today, either admin or rewrite. hopefully an uninvolved editor can address above.

thanks for helping us create a better encyclopedia, Saintstephen000 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintstephen000 (talk • contribs) 02:53, January 6, 2023 (UTC)

Hi Saintstepen000 please read WP:POVDELETION and WP:YESBIAS 1keyhole (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

"Legal History" section

I think this new section is unwarranted. The legal cases mentioned are specific to particular facilities and incidents, rather than to the industry as a whole. Appropriate summary coverage should instead be added to the "Timeline" section where mention of the incidents in question already exists. Meters (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose the removal of duplicate timeline sections on the basis that the expanded version in the legal history section offers a more comprehensive historical narrative. As Wikipedia editors, our objective is to provide an in-depth account of historical facts. Consolidating redundant information enhances the clarity and coherence of the article, ensuring that readers can access a cohesive and informative overview of the subject. 1keyhole (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. These are not legal history for the article's subject matter. And what's the justification for including details of charges that were pled down, not pursued, or even dismissed? The detailed legal details you have added are excessive. We do not need detailed discussions of all of the events and charges, particularly since they are specific to particular facilities and incidents, rather than to the industry as a whole. A summary of any resultant convictions and/closures for each incident in the timeline should be sufficient. Meters (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The Legal History section is also extremely poorly written. It is full of misspellings, grammatical errors, incomplete sentences, broken sentences, and more.--Glenvee (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotion and non-notable content

Chumpih (talk · contribs) keeps adding a link to "an autobiographical, web-based graphic novel" in the See also section of this page. It is a direct link, there is no other mention of this graphic novel on Wikipedia; and on top of that, I can find no reliable or published third-party sources. I think, then, that this is a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTADVERT. I don't want to edit war, though:

1. Does anyone else feel that "Joe vs. Elan School" should remain in the "See Also" section? 2. @Chumpih: are you at all related or associated with the webcomic or its author? wound theology◈ 11:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not related or associated with the webcomic or its author. That said, I did enjoy reading it, and I suspect others may, too. I believe its reasonable content for this page, and it isn't an advert, it's just a link. Chumpih ^t 12:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chumpih: Linking to a non-notable webcomic because you suspect others might enjoy it is a very clear example of WP:NOTADVERT. If it is not notable enough for Wikipedia, it should not be in the "See also" section. wound theology◈ 12:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you give the specific clauses within WP:NOTADVERT that the link clearly violates? And are we cognizant of WP:NNC regarding notability within article bodies?

This looks to be a case of WP:ELMAYBE point 4, so I would be keen to continue this discussion on those grounds.

In support if its inclusion, Joe versus Elan School, an autobiographical, web-based graphic novel is a link to a first hand account of a much-discussed troubled-teen facility Élan School. The graphic novel illuminates much of the content and many of the notions of the article, and is, in my opinion, one of the more evocative portrayals of the industry. The link sits reasonably within the Media section. Or then again it could sit in the Further Reading, which contains several other external links. The graphic novel doesn't appear to have sufficient notability for its own article, but that's not a reason to exclude it from the content of a page, per WP:NNC. Chumpih ^t 12:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NNC does not apply to the "See also" section of pages -- it applies to lists, which the "See also" section is not. Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, external links should not go in the "See also" section anyway. Per WP:ELMAYBE as you link, external links that fail the test for notability must still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Self-published graphic novels are not knowledgeable sources. Being evocative and illuminat[ing] is not a good argument for inclusion -- recommending a piece of non-scholarly media based on its perceived literary merits is advertisement, Wikipedia is not Letterboxd (or whatever the equivalent for webcomics would be, I don't read them.) wound theology◈ 13:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

See also is a peculiar section, and pretty much limited to links to related WP articles. Why is policy for see also relevant in this discussion?

WP:NNC applies to the content of pages (The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles etc.) so it is applicable. There are some clauses within that policy that pertain solely to lists, but that's not the entire scope.

The debated link is from someone knowledgeable, or at least it rings true to many. Why is 'Self-published graphic novels are not knowledgeable sources' valid? is there policy on this?

Why is the statement "being 'evocative' and 'illuminating' is not a good argument for inclusion" valid? Again, is there policy here, or is that just an opinion? I would have thought that such qualities in a source would make it 'good', therefore allowing it to satisfy WP:ELMAYBE.4 . Chumpih ^t 14:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

1. "See also" policy is relevant for the "See also" section.
2. "Ringing true to many" is not a valid argument for inclusion.
3. There is policy for not including things because they are simply perceived as "evocative" and "illuminating" -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. WP:SPS applies even to external links.

wound theology◈ 14:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

1. True, but not relevant. It's a 'Media' section, not a 'See also' section.
2. 'Ringing true to many' attempts to show that it's from someone knowledgeable, satisfying WP:ELMAYBE.4. Put it another way: is there information to suggest that the author of the piece isn't knowledgeable?
3. WP:SPS would apply if 'Joe v. Elan' was cited as a source for statements in the article. That's not the case here: the link isn't appearing within a <ref>. The link is not a source proving statements; it's just a link.

Chumpih ^t 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)