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)