Talk:Juvenile delinquency in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Juvenile delinquency in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taihamagnolia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to edit this page

I propose to make edits to this page. Seeing as how important this issue is in America, I think the page is lacking a lot of important information. I plan to add the following sections: introduction to juvenile delinquency, recent statistics, the cradle to prison pipeline, and the juvenile justice debate, and preventing juvenile delinquency. It is very important to educate the Wikipedia world on this topic, and to show how much room there is for improvement. Showing the room for improvement, this page might have the ability of enacting social change and changing future generations of children for the better.MariaNunez (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on the 1950's rise

The 1950's rise in juvenile delinquency is problematic. It is poorly cited, poorly fleshed out, and attributes the rise to the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boomers were the generation born in the 1950's, not the teenagers of the 1950's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snaperkids (talk • contribs) 08:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing notable errors of style in this page

It would be nice if someone who could actually write would read and edit this article. I'm talking specifically about the following passage, in which the word "increase" (and versions of that word) appears five times: "The 1950s boomed with increases in income, scientific and medical increases, entertainment, and a tremendous media increase starting with the portable radio. After World War II, couples who had put off having children either before or during the war finally had the chance to start a family and live normal lives. Hence, the baby boom initiated the start of a very busy decade. After the first portable radio came out, media rapidly increased. People could advertise themselves to people all around the country and even to people driving in their cars. This media evolution gave birth to a whole new way of living for the generations to come and for the first time ever there was a generation gap. Media was reaching everyone and molding people's lives like never before. Anyone could access comical, frightening, romantic, or sarcastic information, movies, music and so on with the click of a button. A rise in juvenile delinquency was one of the main causes of the baby boom and media increase." Come on, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:c4a8:47c0:147f:fdb8:1df2:735b (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender section

I think it is very strange to shoehorn vague racial claims into the 'Gender' section, especially with declarative statements such as "group A is more likely to do x than group B" with dubious sources. I do not really agree with including a large section on race, as it is a multi-faceted, sensitive topic deserving of its own article. For now I will add an issue template, but I think it drags down the integrity of the page. Mystagen (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the info about race. It's relevant to the article probably, but not to gender. Moreover, it was supported by two sources: one went to a blank page, and the other, which was supposed to explain the connection between poverty and delinquency, didn't actually explain it. It only focused on rates of poverty. If/when the info is re-added, it would need a different section and much stronger sources, i.e., scholarly ones and not just an online fact sheet or bulleted list.--MattMauler (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MattMauler, great work. Thanks a bunch for the help. Yeah I agree it probably deserves its own section, but I am personally not qualified/comfortable writing it. I guess I leave that to those who are more knowledgeable on the subject. Mystagen (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]