Talk:Missing white woman syndrome/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removing the original research

We should not include in the listing of example of the "missing white woman syndrome" every case where a white woman disappeared, ran away for a while, or was murdered. I have removed several names for which no ref had been included showing a reliable source calling it a case of MWWS, and where nothing in Google News Archive showed someone calling it that in a published source. I found and added refs for some of the names in the list which did not have such a label attached in a story. This is consistent with previous discussion in the AFD (which ended with a "Keep" outcome), with the view that this article should not be a directory of every dead/disappeared white woman, and with previous discussions in this talk page, viewable at Talk:Missing white woman syndrome/Archive 2#Prune original research from the list. That section included a number of references citing particular instances of the coverage of kidnapped, missing white women as "missing white woman syndrom." Because of the verifiability policy, please do not add anyone's name without a newspaper article, book, or other reliable source citing it as MWWS. If a Wikipedia editor feels that some disappeared white woman or girl is an instance of MWWS, but can't find where a reporter, writer, or scholar called it that, then don't add it, since your opinion is considered original research. Someone's comment in a blog or someone's personal website is not considered a reliable source. Thanks. Edison (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This article...

...is pure journalism. Complete bollocks. This website is going to the dogs. Orphan Wiki 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but the article is sourced and relevant, and that is what actually matters.AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message)

The article is in itself, just one massive opinion. Worthy of inclusion in The Guardian or The Socialist perhaps, but not here. Orphan Wiki 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced by the articles and studies of various major outlets (not UK tabloids either). If you have an issue with that, take it up with the media. It's this site's job to report what they report in regards to articles like this, regardless if a user feels that said media outlets are incorrect/infactual or not. Whats relevant here is an consistently observed and reported sexual/racial bias in various missing person cases. AlecTrevelyan402(Click Here to leave a message) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

OK. The article (and its title) still feel like a magazine or newspaper feature nonetheless. Orphan Wiki 17:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If the style seems unencyclopedic, then perhaps you could edit it to improve it. It might be a good idea to suggest improvements here first, to gain consensus that it is in fact an improvement, since some opposing strong viewpoints have been expressed about the topic. Edison (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Some day, I hope I'll have the time to do just that... Orphan Wiki 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A few problems

This article puts all the blame on the media for the disparity in coverage. The media relies on ratings (which equals $$$) which are determined by the public. The general public is not interested in some drive by shooting in South Central. They want to hear about the murders that resemble something out of a TV show. This article makes it sound like the general public is extremely interested in the murders of poor minorities but the media just won't report it. Anyone who thinks the murder of a black child in Detroit will make the media the same amount of money as JonBenet Ramsey's murder is delusional. The media only cares about ratings and money.

A January 2011 CNN article on Mitrice Richardson, a murdered black woman got 76 comments. An October 2010 CNN article on JonBenet Ramsey, a murdered white girl, got 1062 comments. Zahra Baker, another murdered white girl, got 174 comments on her CNN article. To me, this shows that there is a difference in public interest amongst cases, especially when a case that happened 14 years ago is getting 10x the comments of cases that are happening right now. The media can't force people to comment on an article.

Lastly, some of the cases listed only got a blip of coverage. A Google News Archive search for Maura Murray brings up 160 articles. A Google News Archive search for Shaniya Davis, a biracial child, brings up 198 articles. How can Maura Murray be an example of MWWS when Shaniya got more coverage? Are we just going to list every murdered white woman who got a 2 minute mention on the national news? Laladoodle92 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You raise an interesting perspective. If you can find references for this you should add them. Any woman listed here must be demonstrably MWWS in reliable sources. Many of the women here should be deleted, such as Murray, which I have done. Feel free to delete any entries that are not MWWS. Lionel (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I did some more Google News searches. I found 207 articles for Taylor Behl , 536 for Brooke Wilberger , 1,130 for Michelle Garner-Quinn , and 2670 for Dru Sjodin . Now compare that to JonBenet Ramsey who has 19,300 articles (and think about how many aren't even on the internet due it being 14 years old) or Chandra Levy with 10,500 articles . Where do we draw the line? I would also say that beauty pageants for JonBenet's case and having an affair with a congressmen in Chandra's case played a much bigger role in getting media attention, than them being white. After all, Chandra has 10x the amount of articles as Michelle Garner-Quinn and they were both white women. Caylee Anthony has 2,210 articles , a far cry from JonBenet's 19,300 articles. They are both little white girls, yet one of them got a lot more media coverage. I think that shows that just being a cute white girl isn't enough. You can see that even within cases that got national media coverage, there is still a disparity in coverage. Yes, being white probably gives you a better chance of being mentioned on CNN, but to get JonBenet or Chandra or Nicole Brown Simpson level publicity, you're going to need to be more than "just" white. Laladoodle92 (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

References

One more thing...

I believe the best judge of MWWS would be to look at a case of a white woman who received a lot of media attention and asked ourselves, "If everything in this case had been the same, but the victim had been a minority instead, would it still have gotten national coverage?" If JonBenet Ramsey had been a black girl who participated in controversial beauty pageants, who was murdered in her $1.5 million dollar house the day after Christmas with a mysterious ransom note, and her CEO father and socialite mother were under suspicion, would that case still get national attention? I would say that beauty pageants and wealth would trump race, so I believe, it would. Now if Natalee Holloway had been a black girl who just graduated from high school, who went missing after being in a club in Aruba, would that have still gotten national attention? No. The best thing to do is to compare crimes with similar circumstances. Some crimes do have extremely unique factors (beauty pageants in JonBenet's case and congressman affairs in Chandra's case) that cause them to stand out from the rest. Laladoodle92 (talk) 08:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow Laladoodle you have great passion. There are rough guidelines for who should be listed. Please see Talk:Missing white woman syndrome/Archive 2#Prune original research from the list. Lionel (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Chelsea King

The sourcing for this is suspect. The ABC news piece doesn't indicate MWWS. The LA Watts Times is a marginal paper at best, and the opinion piece by Hutchinson is just that: an opinion piece. Was this opinion piece subject to the usual editorial oversight and fact checking as required by WP:RS? She should be removed until we have something RS. Lionel (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

National Missing Persons Helpline report

At the mo, this section doesn't actually mention any such report, apart from in the heading. Maybe a sentence at the start to say what exactly the report is? 217.44.143.82 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Holly Bobo

Clear example, but too soon to source. Waiting for people to catch on in the world of commentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.196.111 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony and Laci Peterson

Caylee Anthony, said to be white, seems to have American Indian and Spanish ancestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.18.226 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Laci Peterson seems to have had some Spanish ancestors.

Spanish is white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.218.93 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing white girl vs missing white women

It seems to me that this media bias first began as the public started to noticed how often young white girls are covered in the news compared to minority girls. It seems to me that stand-up comedians were largely responsible for bringing this to the public's attention, and that any formal study was mostly after that fact. Regardless, missing young girls still are the most evident form of this "syndrome" yet this article barely suggests that. (The redirect for "missing white girl" points here, btw.) Jason Quinn (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Missing white woman syndrome" is an incredibly racist concept!

The page about Missing White Woman Syndrome fails to mention a single fact: it exists in all cultures among all races. In Nigeria (99,9% black people) there exists a "Missing Black Woman Syndrome" as lost white children may go unmentioned, while the media focus is on black children. My point being that MWWS is actually a very racist concept. It seems to make believe that ONLY WHITE PEOPLE have MWWS. That would be extremely racist to say! That should lead to the removal of this page entirely!\

Let me explain further what the real causes of so-called "MWWS" are: - people care more about people that are most like themselves (whites more about whites, blacks more about blacks, asians more about asians - no difference here!) - people care most about young, happy, healthy, rich, smart and beautiful people (the weak look up to the strong, to unknown to the famous, the ugly to the beautiful)

In the Western world (dominant white culture) this means media will focus on lost white children, for example, more than on black children. HOWEVER, in the African world (dominant black culture) the same thing happens: a focus on black children more than on white children. And again the same happens in Asia, Latin America, Aboriginal Australia, Oceania, Russia and wherever. In Russia, people would care more about lost Russian children, than about lost American children. We cry more for victims of Katrina and 9/11, while Afrticans cry more for the famine in Somalia and the war in Zimbabwe - because we all care more about our equals! And thats not racist, that reality (people of all races do it in equal amounts, ergo it stops being racist).

I hope I made my point clear. Either you guys explain better why MWWS is a common theme in EVERY culture for people of ALL races, or you entirely remove this incredibly racist concept from Wikipedia. I am very disgusted.

Thanks for reading my argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.143.167.189 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The citations in the article exist there to explain. Your welcome to your personal views, however uninformed they may be, but a blog is a better place for them rather than an encyclopedia. --neon white talk 10:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually have any sources for this? Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, doesn't publish original thought, it seeks to explain things brought up in reliable sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

87.143.167.189, I am offended by the content of Ku Klux Klan, William Luther Pierce and Westboro Baptist Church, but my offensive is not at the article, but the actions portrayed in the article. If you are offended by this article, don't try to delete or change the article, but try to change the actions you find offensive. (BTW - I make no comment on your position re MWWS)Greedyhalibut (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's racism, I think it's favoritism. Also notice how it's mostly girls whereas missing boys go unnoticed by the media. Dionyseus (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree; I mean, there isn't really such thing as "missing white girl syndrome" any more than there is an "murdered Asian girl syndrome" (the latter of which is a favorite hysteria among US media). Le Anh-Huy (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you write something about missing black woman syndrome in the article? I'm a journalist and I think missing white woman syndrome does exist, but my evidence is all anecdotal. I can say there is always more coverage and more interest for something like the Chelsea King murder than for other murders in this area which do not generate this kind of national press. But there are reasons behind it besides race and attractiveness. Money, for instance. Not that the girls necessarily come from rich families, but how much money their parents are willing to spend on full-page newspaper ads, billboards, websites, etc., etc. There also really need to be more books and sociological studies cited. --Bluejay Young (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would we be allowed to make a Wikipedia entry with sourced links about blacks falsely accusing whites of crimes for public fame or profit? There are hundreds of documented cases of rape, murder, and assault that fall into this category. Most notable recent incident would be the Duke Lacrosse incident. Along the same vein, how about a Wikipedia entry on blacks who misuse or constantly abuse the race card. Barack Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee comments in the debt debate are perfect recent examples, as well as OJ Simpson and Don King. I have a feeling despite the thousands of potential sources and court cases, these articles would not be allowed. I guess it wouldn't be PC to post these pages, but creating a "syndrome" invented by the media/NAACP that is not recognized by medical professionals is perfectly acceptable. This article and false syndrome is clearly anti-white in nature and should either be cleaned up or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.41.151 (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has a Race card article to which you may contribute. KLP (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There IS an article about the Duke Lacross case. In my opinion, it very clearly presents the incident as a use of the "race card" to bolster false accusations, which I think is a fairly well accepted opinion, based on facts, in that case. This article presents a fairly well accepted opinion, based on facts, in regards to western media, which is in line with Wikipedia's attempts at impartiality. If it really bothers you, be constructive. Find some facts on Missing Black Woman Syndrome in another country, and go write that article. As long as you write it as a well informed piece on a real occurance (apparently not well known in North America), and not a series of racial arguments, no one should be technically allowed to have a problem with it.--50.98.124.41 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage example

The difference of quality in the articles listed as examples here is in itself a pretty ironic example of MWWS... --50.98.124.41 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Casey Anthony

I believe this does not belong here. The editor who added this to the article did so because they have been reverted multiple times over at Death of Caylee Anthony with trying to put this article into that article. I feel this editor is trying to open a back door way to get MWWS added to this other article. I would also like to point out that the reference used is not a reliable source. This should be removed from this article. Opinions please, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) My motivation in adding this is not a matter for discussion. The only thing which needs to be discussed here is whether or not it's an appropriate and supportable addition. A large part of the reason adding a link to this article is such a bone of contention in the Caylee Anthony article is because editors there appear to have difficulty separating how they feel from what is objectively supportable. (2) No "back door" is necessary. It is a perfectly acceptable addition to the Caylee Anthony article, and would not even be slightly controversial if the subject was not obscured by emotional hysterics. (3) A reliable source is not required for something to be added to the "See Also" section. No claim is being made except that the article being referenced in the See Also appendix has some relationship with the article and may be of interest to those interested in the article. This point has been repeatedly stated and restated in discussion on the Caylee Anthony discussion page. (4) By posting here you are making discussion even more difficult than it already is. As you can clearly see here, a discussion has been initated at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. By dragging it here too, you are forking discussion which needs to be centralized where all stakeholders can participate. -- SmashTheState (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony was not a woman. She was a little girl. This article is not "Missing white little girl syndrome". A number of different child abductions/murders have been added to this article in the past and have been removed for the same reason. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cases of missing girls would also be appropriate in this article, since it is the one article covering missing white girls/women whose disappearance got disproportionate coverage from print and tv news sources, PROVIDED that reliable sources have pointed out the disproportionate coverage of some missing white females compared to missing persons who are not white and female. Edison (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The first source used for this entry is an op-ed piece, and therefore fails WP:RSOPINION. Cayley Anthony is included in this article as in fact being an example of MWWS when no RS has been provided that states this. Also, there is no inline qualifier stating the source is expressing an opinion, and should therefore be removed. The second source says nothing about MWWS at all. I also agree with Chronie that Smashthestate is attempting to circumvent consensus at Death of Caylee Anthony after several reverted attempts to add a link to this page in the See Also section of Death of Caylee Anthony. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a violation of WP:RSOPINION in an article on a rather subjective topic seems kind of circular. KLP (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps the real problem is the rather subjective topic? Shirtwaist ☎ 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, MWWS exists. Identifying it though tends to require some subjective analysis. If the article can explain this characteristic and only list the most notable and egregious instances as examples, that should obviate WP:RSOPINION. KLP (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

MWWS only exists as an inadequately defined and unverifiable entity in the mind of an observer. Are there any experts on it, for example, who have done some kind of objective research on this phenomenon to prove it exists at all? How do we determine which cases are the "most notable and egregious instances"? Is there some number of commentators, who have decided to link any particular case to MWWS, that must be reached before a definite link is established between the two? An op-ed writer follows the Casey Anthony case involving a white woman and her white daughter and decides it must be a case of MWWS...and that is a reliable source on MWWS? Are you kidding me? Since there is nothing more than personal opinion to go on, I don't think that makes much sense. Unless somebody does a poll of all media sources involved in a particular case in which the question asked is "Is your interest in reporting on this case motivated by MWWS?", how can this be objectively established? Should we blindly accept that the Caylee Anthony case, for example, is an example of MWWS because a few commentators say so, when there could be myriad other factors involved that have absolutely nothing to do with MWWS, any one of which could be much more substantially responsible for the attention a particular case gets than something as nebulous as "MWWS"? If so, I'd like to see the reasoning for that with WP standards in mind. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Crohnie, I think that you really need to stop this already. All this whining and complaining over this matter. It seems you did not look at my answers to you in the dispute page, or anything. Take a careful look at all I wrote in the "dispute" page, and the remarks of Carol (who supports the link) as well as the intelligent and balanced comments of "Nuujinn" and "TransporterMan". Also, Smash had every right to put the Caylee article on the MWWS article, since just google the words "Caylee Anthony" along with "Missing White Woman Syndrome" and see the TONS that come up, from reputable writers, doctors, journalists, psychiatrists, etc. And it doesn't matter that they are basically "opinion" pieces, since as I said a number of times now on the dispute page, this MWWS is a matter of theory and opinion TO BEGIN WITH...by its very nature. So what? Anyway, it's just your opinion that this "Caylee" article uh "does not belong here". That's your circular argument simply (when it comes right down to it) because you personally don't like it. Or meaning that YOU JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE "RELEVANT". But it is kinda demonstrated (despite the desperate denials or the rationalizing of it away) that it sort of is relevant. (Also, when it comes to "See also" wiki links, there does not have to be 100% relation or "reliable source" situations, as long as there is some commentary and relevance and interest, as has been demonstrated by a number of sources.) I don't like this "syndrome". I just know that it HAS been brought up by quite a few in the media and in psychology etc. I don't know if it's honest to simply ignore that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you are but I want to put the record straight, I am not whining or complaining about this. I asked others what they thought. You have just started being an editor here so let me tell you this, we don't talk about the editors we talk about the article(s) and how to improve them. That's all I have to say to you about this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Crohnie. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Well said"? Come on. This is a joke now. And the bias seems obvious now. Crohnie said "we don't talk about editors". Ok, well SHE talked about SmashTheState and his motives. So she doesn't apply what she preached. I noticed that you didn't call her out on her hypocrisy, cuz you're in agreement with her posiiton on this matter. Human nature. She didn't follow what she was saying. She arguably "talked" about editors too, and impugned them. Not cool. She didn't apply her own words. And neither do you with your ditto "well said", when you were complaining about petty junk like my imagined "edit warring" that I really didn't even do per se, that even other editors said that you doing that added nothing to the discussion. Also, really? "well said?" And she also said "we talk about the article". Well that's what I've done also... But she is conveniently ignoring that (as are you, because of your obvious personal bias against me, which is more than obvious at this point.) Also, she just totally dodged all the specifics and points I raised above about this, to her. (Sound familiar?) So your "well-said" to Crohnie has very little credibility. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Per below, this "example" and most others should go. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessment, North8000. As such, I now think an editor should to remove Caylee Anthony from this article, but include a brief comparison between the media's treatment of hers and Jada Justice's cases somewhere in Caylee_Anthony#Publicity_and_aftermath as well as a link to this article in Caylee_Anthony#See_also. The other examples this article currently lists should receive similar treatment, but should definitely stay when they fit into the body text of this article and help readers understand MWWS. KLP (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has degenerated into a mere soapbox via not actually covering its subject

This article is basically about the MMWS term, a term which is essentially a POV/political "lens" that those with particular POV apply to certain situations and which alleges discrimination.

So, while, at the simpleton literal level, the title appears to about be situations themselves, in reality it is about a "lens" which some apply to those situations, and a lensed view of those situations. So, any application of that term to any particular situation is essentially an allegation that the "lensed" view is valid & applicable.

By giving so little coverage to the article's subject, the "lens", and so much coverage to situations as-viewed by the lens, this article has unknowingly degenerated into just a soapbox for those with that particular point of view. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A few items to start a fix would be:

• Start covering the term itself. Who invented it? Who is promoting use of the term? Material from both sides of the fence regarding the term and the use of the term.
• Give a few examples of the application of the term to missing persons as such, including who is applying it etc. Other than that, drop all of the missing person listings. The mere listing is a statement that the allegations of the term are correct for and applicable to the situation. The very weak distancing wording (e.g. "given as") barely begins to address this problem. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is the equivalent of giving the term "Socialists run amok syndrone" an article, and then confining debate at the article to deciding which US Democrats should be listed or linked. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points, North8000. I also believe the "list of 'MWWS' victims" should be dropped in favor of properly sourced prose describing for the reader what reliable sources say a)What exactly MWWS is, b)Why they think it's real, and c)Which cases deserve to be classified as being related to MWWS and why. A simple list is misleading. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced examples of MWWS

Whoever keeps adding unsourced entries in the "Cited instances" section needs to stop. You will notice the "cited" part of the section head, which refers to instances that were cited by reliable sources as being related to "MWWS". Uncited entries will be removed, as required by WP policy: WP:V and WP:RS . Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree/second that. Particularly important here (and goes beyond the usual sourcing requirements) because the topic is about a particular way / lens to look at events, not the events themselves. The article is supposed to cover the act of applying that lens, not participate in it. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Missing and/or Murdered Models

How come there is no mention of the fact that whenever a model is missing or murdered, the media always explicitly mentions and even emphasizes in the heading of the story that the victim was a model, even if it has absolutely no relevance to the case at hand whatsoever? It's like a shameless implication that her life was more important and the case is more newsworthy because of it.

See http://www.google.ca/search?q=model+murdered&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&lr=&source=hp&q=model+murdered+site:cnn.com&pbx=1&oq=model+murdered+site:cnn.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=241532l242294l2l242762l7l6l0l0l0l0l155l705l1.5l6l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=bb429346633ab32&biw=1058&bih=631 for examples.

--96.48.80.74 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is Maddie?

Found it difficult to understand why Madeleine McCann is not mentioned. The hysteria over her disappearance breaks every record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.26.232.33 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The utter media blitz regarding Madeline McCann (surely not the only kid to go astray in 2007?) must rank as one of the best examples of this in the last year... very young, very cute, decidedly white (and blonde/blue eyes), and from an affluent middle class background... the explosion in coverage was almost inevitable, as this story's got everything a MWWS event could want. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please every time someone ADDS Maddie onto this page, it gets deleted! I want it to be put here, a class example of media biased. Even today, the news about her is still talked about! Oh someone looks like her - instant headline news. Please there's million of disadvantaged children going missing every day but get unreported, why? because they are NOT white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.24.164 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Think Madeleine McCann has to be added to this article. It's the best most relevant example out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.209.177 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that someone has something to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.16.10 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible instances of MWWS section

Isn't this section all orginal research? There's no sources to say any of these have been linked to MWWS in any way. --neonwhite user page talk 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the cases that haven't been linked to MWWS by reliable sources. --neonwhite user page talk 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We cannot suggest cases are linked to this syndrome if they haven't been linked by sources. We cannot say that they may have recieved biased coverage. This would be original research. --neonwhite user page talk 14:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone here is using POV to try and censor this article. It's almost like someone is looking for reasons NOT to write about Maddie. Is someone here working for a PR firm perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.16.10 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome

add Madeleine McCann to that list as well Kellz88 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless you can reliably source the application of MWWS. TerriersFan (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Age is completely wrong. She was only about 3!!! This refers to 'young women' --neonwhite user page talk 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As well as "missing pretty girl syndrome" - I'm re-adding her. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the media give increased coverage to missing white women or missing white girls. They do not have to be of age to get the coverage denied minorities. Edison (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources refer to young, white, middle-class women and young, female, white, middle-class, and conventionally attractive This does not apply to a 3 year old.--neonwhite user page talk 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare Maddie to a another kidnapped child: Shannon Matthews. A couple of weeks after Madeleine went missing you couldn’t escape the story if you were buried six feet under wet cement in the middle of the Saraha. Footballers everywhere were bowing heads in silence before matches, famous people were offering hundreds of thousands of pounds as reward, the Prime Minister was speaking to the McCanns by phone and the Pope was granting them a private audience. The British historian Simon Schama had this to say about the media’s sensational and unprecedented response to Madeleine’s disappearance.

“If Madeleine had been the daughter of a black single parent from South London, and the occurrence had taken place at Butlins, would there be the same level of media interest?”

The McCanns, it has been noted, were reasonably attractive white, upper-middle class professionals. Personally, I thought Ms McCann was about as attractive as Nurse Ratched. The McCanns were both articulate, they were doctors, they dressed fashionably, they lived in a nice house and they could afford to take summer holidays overseas. Madeleine McCann was angelic and while it’s difficult to use the word ugly when talking about a young child, Shannon was no oil painting. She looked a bit like she might well be the love child of Wayne Rooney. She had a chav name and she was not affectionately dubbed ‘Shannie’ by the press. Even when news stories were run about Shannon’s disappearance it was often the McCanns who made the headline, with their faces gracing the story.

The outpouring of sympathy for Maddie was Niagarran in volume and it took several months of multiple daily updates before a sizable sub-group of people started to voice their frustrations in the comments sections of newspapers. After six months the press were still running headlines like “Maddie McCann Loved Shrek”. Compare this to Shannon Matthews. Three weeks into her disappearance and the story is dead in the water. Her mother Karen is not a doctor with a media-friendly appearance. She has seven children from five different fathers ("slut" goes the public). Her current partner (referred to simply as a “boyfriend” in some press reports) is, at twenty-two years of age, ten years younger than she is ("dirty slut").

The public donated over £1million to the Find Madeleine fund and the McCanns subsequently used the money to finance the mortgage repayments on their million-dollar mansion in Leicestershire. There was suprisingly little outrage expressed among those who had donated money. If it were Karen Matthews using Fund money to repay her mortgage the public response would probably be quite different ("those sort of people can’t keep their hands out of the till") but Karen never got the chance. A church in Dewsbury raised £1,000 for the Find Shannon fund, and while the McCanns offered Karen Matthews “their prayers”, they did not donate any of their own sizable purse to assist in the search for Shannon the chav-child.

No wealthy businessmen, entertainment celebrities or sport’s stars came forward to offer millions of pounds and now that Shannon has been found Richard Branson won’t be offering £100,000 to Ms Matthews to help her defend any charges she might have faced for her daughter’s disappearance. I mean, it’s all a bit sickening isn’t it? I can tell you one thing, if your child is kidnapped you better pray you’re not non-white, working class or ugly.

To add: This is pathetic for you to remove it, what does AGE have to do with it? She's white, middle class and not from a broken home family and judging from your screen name, you're white as well defending your own white pride. 124.183.97.131 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the policies on civility and original research. This theory is not something editors on wikipedia made up. It is a sourced and defined theory as the citations show, it is about 'attractive women' not children, it may well be the case that the same thing applies to missing children but it isn't part of this particular theory and, as far as i know, it hasnt been documented like this theory has. Her disappearance simply isnt linked to this. --neonwhite user page talk 16:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann was in the list, then was recently removed as lacking a reliable source which said she was an example of MWWS or missing pretty girl syndrome or damsel in distress syndrome. Certainly in the blogosphere MWWS has been cited many times in the nonstop worldwide coverage of the disappearance of this child, but blogs don't count as [[WP:RS|reliable sources]. In a quick search for newspapers or magazines citing the "Where's Maddie" publicity blitz as MWWS, I only found a college newspaper which complained about the disproportionate coverage of her disappearance as a case of missing white woman syndrome. I readded McCann with that source, and it was removed as not being a reliable source. A college newspaper article which has a named reporter or editorial writer, and which has editorial review of what is published, seems as reliable as a newspaper in a small town of size equivalent to the college. It is not the New York Times, but many references in Wikipedia are to small circulation periodicals which are not more olympian in their editorial wisdom than a college newspaper. I leave it up to the consensus here to determine whether that one source is enough to keep Madeleine McCann in the list, or perhaps to find other reliable sources which note that her disappearance received vastly more attention than the disappearance of a nonwhite child whose parents were not doctors. Edison (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What we have to remember is that this particular article is not about bias in the media in general but covers only this particular 'syndrome' and the use of the specific term and concept in the media, popular culture etc. College newspapers are not generally considered reliable sources unless they have a distinct history and reputation such as the Harvard Crimson. This source does not appear to have any verifiavility, and even then editorials (this piece is marked as an 'opinion' item rather than a news item) are poor sources and can only really be used to cite opinions. I think we should be very careful with this particular case and demand high quality sources as it clearly does not fit the generally accepted criteria for the syndrome. It is a high profle case and has been covered in thousands of quality verifiable sources and if none of those havent linked it to this syndrome then i think it's best left out. I'm not certain that WP:BLP applies here, officially she is still considered living but the entry may not be considered to be necessarily about her, nevertheless i think high quality sources are necessary. --neon white talk 17:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think someone here is using POV to try and censor this article. It's almost like someone is looking for reasons NOT to write about Maddie. Is someone here working for a PR firm perhaps? Either way it's obvious POV censoring people like this. There have been plenty of citations, so why the big effort to silence things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.4.16.10 (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Race

Article too heavily focused on race. Not the writing itself, which explains everything properly, but the chosen examples, all of which are about race. Old women aren't in the news for a year if they dissapear (they are lucky if they get mentioned in the local newspaper), and neither are men, regardless of race. Neither are very poor people of any race, age and gender. The worst part is the Iraq thing, because it focuses on the difference in coverage between the black, the native american and the white woman, which sounds pretty silly and petty because it's painfully obvious that the only reason any of them got media coverage is because they are women. When you saw Jessica Lynch on TV, did you think "this is only in the news because she is white" or "...because she is a girl"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.218.129 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Racial equality seems to be a far more discussed topic than gender equality or class divisions. Notable crtics thought that about Jessica Lynch that's why they are quoted in the article and if you read it thoroughly it also mentions class background and the fact that Shoshana Johnson was a single mother as possible reasons for biased coverage. --neon white talk 10:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with some of that (like racial equality being more discussed), but now that I've thought about it, I don't even think the things that bug me in the article are intentional, they are probably just a natural result of most editors being from the US. If people from my country, or Germany, Spain or whatever wrote the article it would probably look a bit different, but that is not the fault of the writers of the article, so I guess my criticism is unwarranted. And I guess that not being American, I have a skewed view of the Jessica Lynch thing so you are probably absolutely right about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.218.129 (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the syndrome, and title of the article, puts equal weight on racial bias (favouring whites) and gender bias (favouring women). (Other forms of bias - in favour of youth and wealth - are given lesser billing in the introduction of the article.) In view of this, it's a bit surprising that the section on the Iraq war mentions only the racial bias (in media coverage of Lynch but not Johnson or Piestewa), but not the gender bias (in the lack of media coverage of males killed or captured in the same battle, or of other battles in which no females were involved). In fact, in this article, it's not even clear that there were any males among the U.S. troops involved in this battle, apart from in Lynch's quote. --130.155.177.88 (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Jill Meagher under 'Australia'? I don't think this is a case of 'missing white girl syndrome'

I myself, have seen cases where it's based on white people and the media attention it gets, however I don't think that her story is a case of 'missing white girl syndrome' especially here in Australia, we don't play 'race cards'. The reason why it was a national shock, simple it is RARE for a opportunist attack, usually such cases the victim would somehow know the accused, in this case it was not. I think whoever added Jill Meagher to this wiki page, is either a victim bashing person or is NOT Australian.

Let me point out the reasons why she made 'national/international headlines'

• She is Irish who moved to Australia just 3 years ago - two countries exchanging the coverage
• She is only 29 years old - very young
• She worked for ABC - an Australian Media company
• Her last moments alive was caught on CCTV (and also the person who talked to her, which ended up being the accused)
• She lived just 5 minutes from her home from where the bar she was at with coworkers
• Like every Friday nights, women do walk home by themselves, not choosing to opt with getting a Taxi with a friend because as said above, lived 5 minutes away from home and have done this many times
• Had it not happened to her, it could have to any women in Melbourne
• The circumstances of how they found her, which is tragic and you don't have this sort of ending in Australia - a horrific one
• Many white women in Australia go missing, it does make coverage and some don't much. This case, is because she's young, pretty and works for the Media. Not because of her race.

As a non-white Australian, I feel the mention of the victim should be removed here. It's despicable, dumb and rude.

If you actually read what the definition of Missing white woman syndrome is maybe you wouldn't sound like such a clown. Missing white woman syndrome isn't only about race. You yourself admitted it was because she was both young and pretty. Both are common elements in missing white woman syndrome. Many news reports failed to mentioned she worked for the ABC suggesting this wasn't a significant factor in the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Slater (talk • contribs) 06:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable instances without media reports on the phenomenon. Britt Lapthorne and Jill Meagher

Both cases received a disproportionate amount of media attention in Australia. Both cases featured young, white, middle-class women that went missing. There appears to be no media reports linking the cases to MWWS which is not surprising since the Australian Media doesn't like to think of themselves as being prejudicial or discriminatory. Even without proper citations the extensive media coverage of both cases suggests that they are both classic cases of MWWS and are worthy of inclusion in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Slater (talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Without a reliable secondary source stating that these are instances of MWWS then it would be original research for us to include them in the article. That's not what we do here, we only report the claims that other sources make. SQGibbon (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this real?

The reson I'm emntioning this is because the ONLY...and I mean ONLY time I have ever seen this "phenomenon" mentioned was on an episode of the television series " The Boondocks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.185.58 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the sources in the article. It is general practice to add new sections to the bottom of talk pages. --neonwhite user page talk 16:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately my friend, its more real than can be possibly conceived. All the more due to the fact that it is ingrained in our subconscious minds. Julyda4th 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this comment utterly bizarre - there should be no exception for the basis of existence of Wikipedia articles in terms of notability, evidence or references, whether those articles are about racism or not. To claim otherwise is to ridicule and clownize the entire anti-racist movement.158.143.133.60 (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

White abductees get more coverage because America is still at least overwhelmingly a white country. This article is racist nonsense, and I'm sure it's racist authors were *laughing* as they wrote it frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.67.134 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the above IP user added anti-Polish sentiments to Polish migration to the United Kingdom, e.g. [1]. S/he also referred to a single link to this article on the Elizabeth Smart page as "racist bulls***" [2]. Also vandalised an MP's page by incorrectly suggesting his parents were Jewish [3]. So who is the racist? 82.152.220.72 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Real mature, attacking someone who disagrees with the tone of this article as racist largely because they disagree. For the record, if you look at my IP address, you will see I updated the article to include another example of this phenomena. Obviously it's a real thing. Fact is people like Natalie Holloway got a ton of coverage even though their disappearances weren't big issues that should have gotten national coverage--and even though many other people disappear--so yes, people getting too much coverage when they disappear is an issue, basically in track with what the article says, but at the same time, many people who disagree with what the article say aren't racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.98.223 (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PC nonsense

Even if there is bias in reporting, that is a matter of the fields of journalism and economics (as journalism is economically driven) not psychology. How is this a 'sydrome'? This is political correct non-sense. What about racially motivated crimes by blacks against whites? They are almost never reported. Is that a syndrome. Media outlets have to sell stories for advertising revenues. The fact they may believe missing white women may draw more ratings than missing non-white white women, while bad, is not evidence of a psychological syndrome. This article should not even exist, or maybe it should be renamed Perceived Discrimination in Reporting Missing persons based on Race.

Lastly, Chandra Levy is Jewish. It's debatable if they are 'White'. Jews are Semitic people who originate in the middle-east and are not Indo-Europeans. Laci Peterson (nee Rocha) was of Hispanic/Latino origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.204.184 (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

White Jews are white, for the record, and Chandra Levy was white. White Jews are white in the same way that white Christians are white, and black Jews are black, and Asian Jews are Asian, etc, etc. When you check the race box on the census form, none of the boxes say Jewish. They say caucasian, African-American, etc. Jews can be viewed as a race or "people" in some contexts, anyway, to consider the semitic people as a "race" in the terms of this article would be to consider the Aryan race and Hamitic race as races http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic, which isn't the context of race in America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.98.223 (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, in my opinion. For one thing, Judaism is a religion, not a race. For another, "Indo-Europe" extends from Ireland to India, definitely including the Middle East. Finally, how can you say where Jews originate without knowing their life stories individually? There were Jews among my own ancestry who were definitely not Semitic, but Caucasian in ancestry, as are all Ashkenazi. If you consider whether Jews are white to be debatable, debate it elsewhere, but please don't interject it here. Unfree (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

69.119.204.184 never said anything about religion, she was ethnically Jewish (Levy is a Jewish name, is it not?). And yes, Judaism is a religion, but one which actively opposes converts to it, therefore nearly all members of the religion are also, in part at least, ethnically Jewish! However, if she 'looked white' then I think her case could be seen as an example of MWWS. 217.44.143.82 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this article is notable and well sourced. [4] Your personal opinions of it is not revelant. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Dear anon, the article clearly defines MWWS as a "term used to describe disproportionate media coverage of white female victims" and does not refer to it as a "psychological syndrome." Your gripe against it (the media just doing what they do to sell advertising) is actually evidence for the existence of MWWS. Please read things before you pontificate.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it isn't notable or well-sourced. I agree that it's likely to be occuring, but the pop culture articles being used as "sources" and even its innapropriate use of the word "syndrome" actually detract from it's credibility. In investigating these sources, I have yet to see any "proof" that its actually occurring, only that some people think so. The article lists "possible" examples, but without context it isn't proof of anything. Stockpiling lists of "missing white women" in the article, or in the article's "sources", doesn't prove anything without clearly demonstrating the relationships they have to other cases and stories. Perhaps it would improve the article to include the idea that this phenomenon is "perceived" by certain groups and individuals in its definition. And if there is research to verify that this is occuring, that it is not actually a "syndrome" (a medical term), rather it is a phenomenon. EyePhoenix (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that 'possible' cases shouldnt be listed but if they are sourced as being linked then that is ok according to policy. Whether this syndrome is accurate or not is not mentioned in the article as it is unlikey to be ever accurately proven. The phrase is one that is commonly used and not supposed to be an accurate description. --neon white talk 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

oK I was with you for a minute there, but please explain what you mean by "The phrase is..not supposed to be an accurate description". Also, I couldn't find any place in this article where it explains that this "syndrome" is highly subjective and not intended to be provable. Seems to me it wants, and deserves to be taken seriously. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the scholarship here, this is a list of missing people! Should we nominate this article for deletion. Ishmaelblues (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the unsigned comment above. Editors have to sell papers, so they feature the stories that the public responds to. 86.181.153.30 (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Last sentence of lead says: " The actual phrase comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, who used the term in a 2006 interview with CNN to describe this theorised media trend.[1][3]" This, I think, is misleading, as it gives the impression that Parks coined the phrase, but I gather that she didn't. For others to decide. PiCo (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Totally Unbiased Article

Doesn't cite a single peer reviewed study, all citations are to left-leaning news sources, questionable encylopedic value... Hey, I've got an idea, let's start an article called "Violent black man syndrome" and exclusively cite Stormfront and FOX. 70.78.28.9 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at this talk page more closely, EVERY GOD DAMN USER, FROM THE NEWEST IP-USER TO THE OLDEST REGISTERED USER, WANTS THE DAMN PAGE REMOVED! WHY IS IT STILL HERE? 70.78.28.9 (talk) 03:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:I DONT LIKE IT isn't yet a valid guideline, while verifiability & notability still are, which are air-tight on this subject. EXHAUSTIVE studies document the statistically disproportionate coverage missing WW generate vs non-whites, by TWENTY SEVEN TIMES. If the reality of that discomfits you, then good, it should. But don't blame it on the messenger (Wiki) 100.36.154.131 (talk)

Hannah Anderson

Hannah Anderson should be added to this list. The crime was resolved and she's been located almost a week ago, yet media sensationalism keeps her in the press. 68.179.166.171 (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's an academic source on Madeleine McCann as a case of MWWS

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552070701630665

If anyone wants to use it. It's from Sarah Stillman, New Yorker journalist and NYU academic who specialised in MWWS while at Oxford.

--Mongreilf (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing is not murdered

There is a flawed comparison that is almost made in Wikipedia's voice. You really need to look to see that it's not. What is described as the " street murder" (though the convictions in the case were not of murder) of ten-year-old black boy Damilola Taylor by a 12 year old boy and a 13 year old boy is being contrasted to 3 cases of that were actual disappearances of missing white female (children), who only later were found to have been murdered: "murder of Amanda Dowler, the murder of Sarah Payne, and the Soham murders". Damilola Taylor was never missing. And it's not obvious to me that the assertion the latter group of parents were middle class as well as white is at all true. My impression is many of them were working class. The comparisons are being made nonetheless. No one wants to downplay a death or disappearance so the article just keeps getting added to as a list of asserted cases. It seems assertion on these issues does not need to be backed up.Overagainst (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

I think it's inappropriate to cite CNN to claim the phrase was coined on CNN. It might be self-serving for them to say that. Besides, the source doesn't quite claim that; the first CNN source cited says only "That was the phrase invoked by Sheri Parks, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, during our interview yesterday." Furthermore, the 2nd CNN source cited contains "PARKS: Like everybody else, I call it the missing white woman syndrome", which actually suggests Parks did not coin the phrase herself. According to this book, the phrase was actually coined by Gwen Ifill, a PBS news anchor. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem was remarked before with no action, so I'm removing the likely bogus claim about Parks now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede says "is a phrase coined by social scientists to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases involving young, white, upper-middle class women or girls". Gwen Ifill is not "social scientists". The ref is quite interesting and it makes clear that Missing white woman syndrome is exactly what it sounds like: an attribution of racial bias in favour of media coverage of missing white females. It's specifically racial and was not coined to describe anything about upper middle class women so the lead shoud not say it was. Overagainst (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)