Talk:Academic seduction

message: Neologism? The term "academic seduction" with this meaning (rather than referring to the attraction felt to a particular topic of study etc.) seems to appear only on Wikipedia and mirror sites. 142.3.164.195 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *we are voting to rename the article below Aine63 04:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologism

message: There is literature on this topic, but most of it targets male teachers as if they are the only ones that over-step boundaries, which is a complete fallacy. And as women step into positions of increasing power, they are making all the same mistakes that men have in the past--including sexual harassment and abuse of subordinates.  Because of this, as I add new information and sources, I'll be making a point of maintaining a gender-neutral focus in the article.  Women are as guilty of these transgressions as men, and the article should reflect this. Aine63 21:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The gender issue

message: First, the title is almost certainly wrong.  "Academic seduction" gets <150 ghits, and five Google Scholar hits of whihc none are substantial uses of the term.  Given that it is acknowledged in the article to be a form of sexual abuse, it's hardly surprising that the term seduction is not in common currency.  It's not a lack of "global perspective", more that this is a neologism and one whihc is unlikely to gain much currency.
Second, this article gives a very strong impression of novel synthesis from the sources.  That is likely the result of the title as much as anything else.
So, we need to have a better title and a change to the lead paragraph to reflect this. 
Two titles have been suggested: Academic sexual abuse and Academic sexual harassment.  Other possibilities exist.  It is also unclear how this differs from abuse by any other adult in a position of authority (e.g. scoutmasters, youth leaders, priests) so perhaps the context needs to be widened. One thing of which I am absolutely sure: the word seduction is wholly inappropriate.  Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I put this article up for deletion, most of the keeps were provisional on a later title change, though the "poll" above seems not to have gotten much interest. As described in the deletion discussion, I'd think titles specifically referencing harassment or abuse would be appropriate only if the text confined itself to those subjects. As it is, it describes sexual interactions between students and educators that are not necessarily abusive. Opabinia regalis 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not necessarily abusive" is the issue--some people think they are, some think they are not.  The problem with changing the name to one that includes "abuse" or "harassment", or merging the content into an abuse or harassment article, is that this could be viewed as being POV, as there are many arguments in favor of these types of relationships. The current title, though very lacking and certainly a neologism, is far less judgmental, and leaves room for the discussion of the debates that are taking shape in the article. However, I don't mean to be defending it as I don't like it either. Still, whatever the title change, I think it needs to be as free of any POV as possible. Aine63 16:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My initial reaction to this article was similar to JzG's.  Zantastik's suggestions, posted above, however, convinced me that this article has potential.  I agree that the article needs a different title, but am somewhat flummoxed as to what it should be.  Limiting the article to discussion of only abusive sexual relationships or harassment would be a mistake, in my opinion, as it would basically eliminate the potential to discuss subjects mentioned above, such as sexual relationships between pupils and masters in ancient Greece or the fact that French universities do not discourage professor/student sexual relationships (I think, anyway).  Perhaps, then, the title Educator/student sexuality would be more appropriate, if a bit bulky (though perhaps it would create a subpage problem at Educator?). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have an article on pederasty.  This is a novel synthesis of abusive and supposedly non-abusive contexts.  Perhaps it should all be merged to pederasty? Just zis Guy you know? 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, after typing then deleting a post in disagreement and upon further reflection, I think you're right about this being OR.  The subjects Zantastik brings up above can be discussed in other articles.  This article, though it cites reputable sources, synthesizes the facts and ideas contained in those sources without attribution for said synthesis, which seems to fail comport with this and perhaps this. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 14:29, 1 August 2006 
(UTC)
Wiki-osmosis?  I find it interesting that people can label the content of the article a "novel synthesis" of the references when it is unlikely that the people making these comments have read any of the books. Are you getting this information from some kind of channeling technique?  (Of course, if you have read the books, I stand corrected with apologies.)  Aine63 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you arguing that it is not a novel synthesis?  Can you explain how it is not if you believe it is not, perhaps with a link to a reliable source which synthesizes the information contained in the multiple sources cited in the article (or one of the sources cited if they attempt such synthesis)?  I have already changed my mind once on this, and could easily switch back, I think, provided that such a source exists.  Thanks. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, with this change, the definition will have to be revised to be one that is consistent with those common to "sexual harassment."  The portions of the definition, and article, that discuss even consensual sexual interactions as abuse/harassment should be discussed elsewhere in the article.Aine63 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Educating Rita ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol and it's Google-able, too. Aine63 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's also already taken as a title.  If we used it, we would have to call it "Educating Rita (not the film)" ;) Aine63 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problems with this article 

message: We are back were we started, with a need for a new title, but no one really being able to come to a consensus as to what it should be.  However, that people don't know how to refer to an issue or a topic does not mean it isn't legitimate.  Since the editors have already voted to keep the article with a name change, this is what should come next.  But no one has been willing to discuss this in any significant way.
Therefore, I propose that we go ahead and change it to "Academic sexual harassment" or even better "Sexual Harassment in Education" which is a topic title that already does exist in the literature.  This will make it a sub-article of Sexual harassment.  (Merging it into "Sexual harassment" isn't good because that article is already very long, and still needs more global content.) While I think it's smacks of POV, it's a little less POV then "abuse," and I only lean in this direction because almost all of the literture uses the term "harassment" when they are discussing sexual interactions and relations between students and teachers whether they are discussing in support of these kinds of relationships, or agaisnt them. However, we should keep the "Debates" section, and expand to include a healthy balance of both sides of the issue--but I have to admit that literature in support of these kinds of relationships has been very hard to come by so far, which is why this section is still scant. (The truth is, the only arguments I've come across that are in support of any type of sexual interactions with students, consensual or otherwise, are made by teachers who themselves like to have sexual interactions with students.)
If there is no serious, in-depth discussion on alternatives to a title change over the course of the week, I'll make this change this weekend. Aine63 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, with this change, the definition will have to be revised to be one that is consistent with those common to "sexual harassment."  The portions of the definition, and article, that discuss even consensual sexual interactions as abuse/harassment should be discussed elsewhere in the article.Aine63 19:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Educating Rita ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol and it's Google-able, too. Aine63 23:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also already taken as a title.  If we used it, we would have to call it "Educating Rita (not the film)" ;) Aine63 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New title

message: OK, so no feedback means I make the change.  I've created a new article called "Sexual harassment in education" to be a sub-article of "Sexual harassment."  I chose this because it's an already established topic in the media and literature, and because it's the least POV.  Also, "Acacemic sexual harassment" and "Academic sexual abuse" are just more neologisms.  
The "Academic seduction" content will remain in the new article, but will now be a sub-topic of the larger issue of sexual harassment in education. This will require some minor changes to how those sections are structured. It will also require the addition of a lot of new content, which is in progress but will take time to add. See the article Talk page for more on the plan for the new direction.
I'm not going to place a re-direct to the new article for a few days, not until some of the needed new information has been added, and the body of the article has been shaped a little more. Peer harassment is more common then harassment by teachers, and this area needs to be fleshed out. Aine63 23:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New article has been made