Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic seduction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discuss any potential name changes on the talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Academic seduction

Neologism. Apparently only Wikipedia and its mirror sites use this term: [1] Also contains lots of unsourced content for an article that boils down to "professors and students sometimes date each other". Opabinia regalis 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the article begins by connecting the issue to sexual abuse, it's hardly an article about "professors and students sometimes date each other". Mary Kay LeTourneau used the same techniques, as do other predatory teachers. (I've revised the article to include relationships with underage students.) The "Mother-father figure" outlined on the SHS Types of Harasserspage would be a good inclusion here as it outlines how these types of personalities operate. I think the article should stay, but be expanded upon to include the effects of such relationships, the psychology of the teachers who engage in the behavior, and all information should be sourced.Aine63 00:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the direct sexual abuse connection is one of the statements I have a problem with, since there's nothing inherently abusive in a teacher-student relationship. It's good that you're interested in the subject, but maybe there should be a more general article, or subsection of sexual abuse, dealing with power differentials in general. This title is a total neologism and the article history has more removals of dubious content than additions of good content. Opabinia regalis 01:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Good point, and one that should be added as there are some good student-teacher relationships, and even some happy marriages that have come from student-teacher relationships. A move to sexual abuse would be very appropriate for the type of behavior that this article is really discussing. Either way, if the editors decide to do this move or not, I volunteer to flesh out this section myself, using good source material, and there is quite a bit of it. Aine63 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• here are some real life examples of the problem, in both universities and secondary school: Naomi Wolf: The Silent Treatment SESAME survivor stories. It's a much bigger problem than most people are aware of. Aine63 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Isn't there a better name for this? I know that teacher-student dating is often prohibitted by schools. — Reinyday, 01:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• yes, more and more schools are prohibiting this because in most cases, these relationships do more harm than good. Aine63 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and merge per above. JChap (Talk) 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment One study, conducted on psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators. Aww man! I totally should have put the moves on my math teacher!!! --Xrblsnggt 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic --Peta 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can rewrite & source this article and find a proper name for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep let's give the above editors some time, so long as they are willing to work on it a bit. AdamBiswanger1 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and probably rename to academic sexual abuse or academic sexual harrassment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bacchiad (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep and move per Bacchiad. This may be inherently POV: the mere invention of the idea strikes me as axegrinding. I'd be inclined to let it provisionally remain to see what it becomes. Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rename per Bacchiad. The current title is too POV. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the uncited and unverifiable claims; if there's anything left, keep that. Do not "give people time" to find citations -- unverified claims, particularly controversial ones like the claim in this article that 10% of students have sex with teachers, must be deleted, not kept hanging around for ever in defiance of our clearly stated core policies. — Haeleth Talk 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you follow the link? It's to an abstract of the study that makes the claim. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I just corrected various links. To put it simply, the article is currently a mess and needs much more outside sourcing, in particular it needs to source the connection between "seduction" and "abuse". For a recent article that got shot down because it tried to discuss a single academic source at length, see here. ~ trialsanderrors 18:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to a better name. If this title is only used on Wikipedia, then that's a problem. But the phenomenon, and increasingly the coverage and study of said issue, exists. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with new title per Bacchiad or move to Sexual Abuse as the differentiation needs to be made that this is about predatory and abusive behavior, and not all intimacies between students and teachers are bad. Aine63 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to sexual abuse. Zos 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate topic, move to better name, mark for cleanup and as needing references. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the title was the novel (no, I haven't read it) Professor Romeo by Anne Bernays. Anne Bernays, apparently a redlink, was the daughter of Edward Bernays, and her novel was a bestseller in 1989. In fact, Bernay's novel got two reviews in The New York Times. One of them speaks of "an old and familiar analogy: that teaching is a surrogate love affair, a complex form of seduction. Throughout history (remember the Paolo and Francesca affair) there have been teachers who have taken that analogy all too literally. So on occasion the professor or tutor has been the Don Juan, doing with the body what he (or sometimes she) hopes to do with the mind. Universities are always strangely erotic as well as intellectual communities. That, presumably, is why they have become one of the principal battlefields in the gender wars of the 1980s." (Bradbury, Malcolm, 1989: "Professor Romeo." The New York Times July 23, 1989, p. BR1) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Strange title. Contains original research. Yes, the phenomenon exists. Abaelard and Heloise exist. People have witnessed it, myself included. This doesn't mean this article under this title is needed. Dr Zak 05:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• if the title is the only problem, then why not just vote to change the title or move to another section. A poor title is hardly enough of a reason to delete a topic altogether. Aine63 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The whole article is a pile of original research and a magnet for more of the same. Dr Zak 16:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• "the whole article" is not a "pile of original research," a good number of the points are cited with books and articles. Clearly, you even really looked it over. Aine63 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom "Neologism" and per Dr Zak. Even all three of the references label it "Sexual Harassment", I'll change my opinion after it becomes an actual phrase of common usage, perhaps in the press, or when "Presidential seduction" or "CEO seduction", or other similar phrases start to appear. Ste4k 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AdamBiswanger. I agree that the article needs more time and a little clean up. It has a good start though. Agne27 03:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming article: At this point, the majority say the article should stay, but some feel it should be renamed. I've started a discussion on the article talk page, if people want to vote on this. Aine63 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.