Talk:Missing white woman syndrome

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)

Amber Alert

I removed the "Amber Alert" reference, since Amber Alerts only apply to missing children, not adults (as the term "woman" implies). --149.159.1.177 13:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"Missing white woman" and "Missing white girl" reflect the same biases of the 24/7 news channels. Maybe "Missing white female" could cover the topic better, although commentators use "woman" or "Girl" in criticizing this coverage bias. Edison 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-White Racism

Exemplying the arrogance and strident Anti-White Racism that occurs in the Western world and also on Wikipedia; this article is not only disgusting but also disingenous. The hatred that self loathing whites and their racist counterparts feel towards those of European background in the western world will hopefully become dissipated before a genocide occurs. This article, as well as the thoughts articulated herein, fan the flames of racism and has no place in the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.187.170 (talk • contribs) April 23, 2006

Pfff. --Jerome Potts 08:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. Big surprise that this type of comment comes from an anonymous user. Racism is what fuels Missing white woman syndrome and to suggest that anyone who believes that Missing white woman syndrome is detrimental to society is a racist is the most ass-backward logic I've ever heard. Also, why couch your argument in logic at all? We all know this feeling starts in your heart and you only put it into words for some semblance of actual thought and rationale. --Hraefen 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not make moral judgements or give personal opinions. I think I've learned to spot possible trolling on talk pages, and this could well be an example of it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Counter example of horrific murder of White people by Blacks ignored by national media

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder prolonged torture and gang rape by a gang of blacks of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian ignored by national media. See link

Was deleted as massivley POV... 62.25.109.195 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate crimes are bad but what the hell does this have to do with this?

None of these missing White women cases has anything to do with the brutal murder of a young couple.

You are saying that coverage of missing white women 24/7 is justified because four Black people murdered a White couple. --69.87.176.180 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Horrific murder...of whites...by blacks...? Sounds like O.J. Hey! Didn't that get national media attention? (:-O 64.241.230.3 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It does underscore the one of the problems faced by this article -- there are absolutely no criteria being used to include/exclude examples. According to our definition of MWWS, this crime *should* have been given disproportionate media coverage because a young white attractive female went missing (if only briefly) and then was found murdered. And yet... it didn't. Why don't you see that as a counterexample? What WOULD be a counterexample to you? I'm sure there are hundreds or thousands of cases of missing white women who are not given widespread attention in the media. This article should be discussing why that is, perhaps as a counterargument against MWWS, or perhaps to further refine the definition to more specific attributes. Even more importantly, the examples that *are* given need to be justified. Why is Chandra Levy an example of MWWS while Channon Christian isn't? Why is Tamika Huston an example of negative bias when her case was no more interesting or gory than Channon Christian's? Stdarg (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Holloway

They've come to the conclusion on the Holloway article that she should not be listed as presumed dead until an official government announcement...I'll change it if no one has any objections. Jarwulf 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Presumed dead" means she's thought of as dead. Plus, investigators treated this case as a potential murder case. KyuuA4 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "presumed dead" has a legal meaning - it doesn't mean that "somebody thinks she's dead". It means specifically that a death certificate has been issued. Has one? Charlene.fic 18:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hot Button Topic

LILVOKA Let's hope Nioqui McCowen and Tamika Huston join the list of missing people who finally get cover "not because" of race...... Thanks to everyone who took part in making Missing Pretty Girl (White Women) Syndrome a hot button topic. Keep up the good work Wiki-editors. LILVOKA 2005 August 27 9:00 (UTC)

Is this a political action website or an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.190.201 (talk • contribs) June 9, 2006

Who knows, maybe someday in the year 2525 someone will care when it's a man who disappears. =P -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Go to the Doe Network: you'll find people who care right now about all 100,000 Americans who are missing. Yes, 100,000. I wonder if anybody cares about the non-Americans, or those who aren't young or pretty or thin or middle-class or from good families. Charlene.fic 18:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I see that an NPOV tag has been added and removed without discussion here. I think whoever added the NPOV tag is confusing the point of view of those who have identified and described the phenomenon (as found in the external link refences) with bias in the article. The "Stages..." section is basically a summary of the articles referenced. However, I like the addition of "...coined by some media critics..." and "According to those who advocate the theory...." I'm not sure it tempers the description sufficiently to placate anyone who thinks that highly-selective supercoverage of a news story is responsible journalism, but I think it's accurate. --Tysto 17:01, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Legacy

Should a section be included on the "legacy" of such cases? In some cases (Amber Hagerman, Jessica Lunsford, Laci Peterson, Megan Nicole Kanka) actual legislation is enacted to ensure that "nothing like this ever happens again." Altho I don't doubt that there is well-intentioned civic-mindedness in most cases, there is also a certain crass opportunism in enacting such legislation that seems to be a part of the hype. --Tysto 03:57, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

I just want to say that the list that's out there right now, of missing white women, and the laws they inspired, is fabulous. Kudos to parent for the idea and whoever put it together. 207.67.116.10 12:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Membership in the club

Deletion or not, how the hell is Terri Shaivo missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 (talk • contribs) July 19, 2005

I also deleted Jessica Lynch, she doesn't seem to be appropriate for this article. John Barleycorn 06:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

While Jessica Lynch might not be missing either, she very closely follows the profile nonetheless. I suppose you can argue hers was a case of a "missing" woman as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.10.235 (talk • contribs) July 22, 2005

I agree that Jessica Lynch fits the model; her case differs from the others mainly in that the general outcome was known early on. But the endless coverage and rampant speculation over what exactly happened, how it happened, who was involved, etc. were the same. --Tysto 14:16, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Schaivo is was media hype but not MWWS. Maybe she was missing consciousness but that's a stretch of logic.MPS 16:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At one point, Lynch was missing. She's white and was captured/kidnapped in Iraq. After being found, she received the media hype. Plus, in comparision, a black woman (whose name I cannot remember without looking at the article) was in the same situation as Lynch. Thus, Lynch is a prime example of this phenomenon. KyuuA4 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if she got the coverage after being found and rescued, then the hype is somewhat justified. Was the other woman, Shoshana Johnson, found too? (I dunno, i hardly watch the news, precisely because of the topic at hand, plus others...) --Jerome Potts 08:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not think Jill Carroll belongs on this list, either. I think her situation was driven by her occupation and her capture as a journalist. NickBurns 02:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore there has been plenty of coverage of hostages of all sexes, races, and professions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in earlier contexts. Coverage of a "missing cute white girl" is not the same. Joseph N Hall 09:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted two more who were murdered and never missing and Jessica McClure, the baby-in-a-well story, which is completely different from MWWS. --Tysto 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest deleting Patty Hearst and Polly Klass. Hearst primarily received attention because of her parentage (and the bizarre circumstances of her apparent brainwashing). Klass was taken in a particularly blatant and heinous crime that would no doubt have brought attention regardless of gender or race.Jcb10

VfD

This article was listed for deletion; the result was to keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Missing White Women Syndrome for a record of the votes and discussion. Postdlf 05:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

cool. I am grateful to those who bothered writing it, it articulates what i've been annoyed with for soooooooo long. --Jerome Potts 08:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Paraphilia

I removed the line about this being a paraphilia. With no citation, it sounds like speculation. Joyous (talk) 03:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Missing children

How did the Missing white Woman list forget to list CARLIE BRUCIA? Of all the white girl's kidnapped, she is freshest in my mind. The media didn't even have the balls to tell the public she was presumed raped - then strangled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.228.63 (talk • contribs) July 24, 2005

I've added her to the list. A main article on her already exists of course. --Tysto 14:16, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a soapbox

I'd just like to point out to those people linking to Wikipedia is not a soapbox that it was meant to apply to the articles themselves, not their talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.128.51 (talk • contribs) July 28, 2005

Nope. Discussion about what should be in the article, including debates about facts are what belongs on the article talk pages. But, article talk pages are not a place to rant about problems in the world. A greater deal of freedom is allowed on the *user* talk page, provided it doesn't bother any user. Although, if somebody just wants to debate, there are lots of better places to do that. There are countless "free-for-all" message boards out there. I don't understand the reason for wanting to use wikipedia as one. --rob 06:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

If so, I haven't seen it enforced anywhere else. And there are plenty of articles full of commentary like this for topics that strike a chord one way or another. The most recent I can think of is Jean Charles de Menezes. I maintain that this rule has been written like it was intended to prevent contamination of the articles, not to censor talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.128.51 (talk • contribs) July 28, 2005

I looked at the Menezes article and I disagree. The users there are engaging in discussion, which includes expressing their points of view, which is just what a discussion page is for. They're just sorting out the details of what happened and why. No one spontaneously wrote several paragraphs of pure opinion. However, I agree that there was no particular need to delete the sections from this page that were pure opinion. --Tysto 16:05, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

Also, There's another Wikipedia rule wikipedia:Ignore all rules that means you can pretty much do what you want but beware that other people can pretty much do what they want including interpreting the Wikipedia is not a soapbox rule. Wikipedia is run by consensus, not by hard and fast rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPS (talk • contribs) July 29, 2005

Groupthink

Media critics suggest that this speculation often leads to a kind of poorly-founded consensus called groupthink. Those involved in the investigation of the case (detectives, prosecutors, etc.) are invited onto the shows and asked pointed and accusatory questions suggesting that they are incompetent or negligent. Sometimes, the suspects themselves are invited on the shows and asked similarly pointed and accusatory questions about their involvement.

Can someone explain exactly what this has to do with groupthink? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the formal academic theory of groupthink as formulated by Janis, and while it may qualify for the informal corruption of the term to mean "consensus created by conformity", there's no reason to even mention the term "groupthink" in that case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the groupthink reference after finding it in the Buzzflash article, which I added to the references and after reviewing the WP article on groupthink. I was not describing MWWS as groupthink, however, but rather the false consensus that news media arrive at about what happened to the woman and who is guilty. That seemed to me to conform quite closely to Janis's criteria describing groupthink (illusion of invulnerability, unquestioned belief, collective rationalization of group's decisions, shared stereotypes of outgroup, illusion of unanimity, pressure on dissenters, etc.). We're talking pop psychology, but it's not my term, seemed appropriate, and was backed by citation. I'm satisfied with false consensus effect, tho.--Tysto 17:10, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Well, if you'll forgive my saying so, a lot of people misuse the word "groupthink" because they only look at how situations are similar to Janis' antecedent conditions and fail to look at how they're different. Janis's research was based on situations where the social cohesiveness of a decision-making group interferes with their ability to make the best and most realistic decisions. To apply it to people who aren't operating as a group, let alone a highly socially-cohesive group, is to misapply it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck but is green, a sociologist believes that it is not a green duck but an as-yet-undefined duck-like phenomenon? This is why sociology gets no respect. ;-) --Tysto 02:58, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

Measles causes a child to break out in red spots. However, when a car breaks out in red spots, we say that it is rusting, not that it has "auto measles". The fact that they are undergoing similar effects is rather outweighed by the fact that those effects cannot have the same cause. Likewise, when a decision-making group appears to have been led into making a bad decision by the social cohesiveness of the group, we call it "groupthink". When the "group" is really more of a class of people in the same situation who probably have little or no social interaction with each other, to call it "groupthink" brought on by social cohesiveness is not just describing an effect but attributing it to a cause that makes no sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I get you now. That is a much clearer explanation of groupthink than exists on its article page. The article lists high social cohesiveness as a condition that encourages groupthink rather than as the primary trait. However, I didn't mean to suggest that the whole news media covering a missing white woman operates as a cohesive group, only that each show does. But they also influence, compete with, and conform to each other (hence the greenness of my duck), which confuses the matter. It's better to leave out the mention of groupthink entirely. --Tysto 04:49, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

History of "Missing White Woman Syndrome"

I agree with the article that MWWS is largely a modern media phenomenon, but perhaps it would be interesting to include several prominent cases from history (Mary Phagan is the one that springs to mind) that could be called forerunners of this phenomenon. In the example of Phagan, the media coverage in nationwide newspapers does seem to fit many of the criteria given on this page. I'm sure there are others.--BrendanMLeonard 15:25, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

In the city of Richmond, Virginia a college student by the name of Taylor Marie Behl is apparently missing. The 17-year old freshman was last reported missing after her car appears to be found with Ohio tags that were reported stolen. Is this a new face to the ever growing controversy "Missing White Women Syndrome". As Fox News begins their campaign for another "saga" filled news coverage in which a person of interest is found and blamed for the disappearence, or apparent murder. Then becomes lamblasted by the media next, then later the charges are dropped and then they rally for toucher crimes for each state, then after the week passes, the girl will be found alive, and then they never apologize for the inconvience of the person they accused or the viewer who had to watch the contstant news coverage and malfunction the views of others who believe that when it comes to the missing, it's just not a "black and white" issue. Oh, I can't wait until the next suburban white girl comes in to the picture. LILVOKA 18 September 2005

Taylor Behl was murdered, her body found in a shallow grave. Another student, Monica Sharp, from the same town has been missing since September 18. The media went all out for Taylor Behl and still are, but there's practically nothing on Monica Sharp. She's black. Police deny bias. Yeah, right. Maluka 04:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The police don't tell the media who to go ape over. Peyna 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no- they can choose who they give press conferences about and whose case they promote more. (Not saying they did or didn't do that in this case, just saying they have that power.) Whateverlolawants 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They know what people go crazy for already. You gonna blame them for anticipating it? Every name is taken12345 05:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

White Supremicist Warning

Doesn't the addition of a "warning" in the link to the National Vanguard site indicate a value judgment that violates NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.242.221 (talk • contribs) September 25, 2005

National Vanguard is a considered a racist site. Their contributions are usually bringing in negative towards non-white, Jewish and Islamic people. Please continue to use the warning tag. LILVOKA 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the warning should be used. Maluka 10:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Germany?

"This syndrome appears to be most prevalent in US media, but famous examples can also be found in the United Kingdom and Germany, among others." – I think that at least a handful of examples should be given for each country to substantiate this statement. I'd be especially grateful for examples of MWWS in Germany as I can't think of any. --Maikel 11:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Germany from that sentence since no instances were brought forward. Maikel 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

What is the evidence of MWWS in the UK? The only British case listed is Sarah Payne and we could possibly talk about the Soham murders. But there was also a lot of media coverage of the Damilola Taylor and Victoria Climbie cases (both involving black children). I propose deleting mention of the UK unless someone can show (a) disproportionate media coverage of MWW in the UK (considering that ethnic minorities make up a smaller proportion of the UK compared to the US population) or (b) use of this term within a British context. Fionah 10:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I can't really speak to part (a) of your suggestion, but I can say as an American, that MWWS is by no means a commonly known term here. It's pretty specific to sociology/media studies etc. I don't think that lack of use of or awareness of the term in the UK necessarily means that MWWS can have no manifestations there. And it needn't be an extremely pervasive phenomenon there to be mentioned either. It's just one theory about the media and public awareness. There is my 2 cents.--Hraefen 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You must live in a shoebox, then. Because there are plenty of references to MWWS in this very article, most written this year. This was a hot button argument all through 2005, the Year of the Missing White Girl. Rattlerbrat 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about Rattlerbrat? If you're gonna start a personal attack, at least be clear about what you're saying and who you'r directing it at.--Hraefen 19:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I added some text about MWWS in a UK context. My background is psychology not sociology or media studies, so the section could probably do with some editing. The issue has been in the news lately with the police commissioner's comments. (I currently live in Ireland but we get the British news. I was in Britain at the time of the Soham murders, and there was indeed blanket coverage.) Fionah 10:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the many problems with this article is that "MWWS" is a neologism unknown to the vast majority of the world population, and specifically the US and UK. It's original research when an article lists examples of "MWWS" that cannot be literally cited as such. The names must be taken from outside sources that discuss "MWWS", and those sources must provide the names. Names cannot be added to the "MWWS" list simply because a contributor knows of an abductee/murder victim who fits the description of the term. A list of "well known minority abductees and murder victims in the US and UK" might have some value, but that is not the same as a list of "documented/asserted cases of MWWS."

To put it simply, don't cite victims who aren't literally cited in outside source material that refers specifically to the "MWWS" phenomenon. It's not the job of Wikipedia authors to make determinations about which victims can be presented as examples of "MWWS" and which cannot. It is the job of Wikipedia authors to present outside source materially factually, accurately, and objectively. Joseph N Hall 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone needs it, there is now CLEAR, incontrovertible evidence of MWWS in the UK. Madeleine McCann.77.44.50.57 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The missing person case of Suzy Lamplugh is another candidate. Xn4 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Candidate (Feb-Apr '08): Shannon Matthews. --Mark PEA (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

kuro5hin article

Please see my comments here; would this link be appropriate to be added to "Missing white woman syndrome"? The article specifically addresses the issue, which might make it more relevant that other editors deemed it was to the Natalee Holloway article. Does anyone object to my adding the link? -Kasreyn 09:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has objected. I will assume this means no one minds. I will add the material. Please direct any comments to this section of the talk page. -Kasreyn 09:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to add "Teacher and Student Relationship Media Syndrome"?

It's getting to a point where you'll hear a beautiful teacher and a troubled student get into a forbiden relationship. Where as the teacher has an affair with a student (or others) and gambles their teaching career, as well as, the family relationships in the process. It's a shame, that CNN, Fox News and MSNBC as well as the newspapers make haste to constantly cover news stories that overshadow an already dramatic session of life! LILVOKA.

I hear you, but the media have not coined a phrase akin to MWWS... perhaps you wish to add your gripe to media hype (no rhyming intended!) MPS 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This subject is a completely different one. After all, those white women were never missing to begin with.

Although, we've been seeing many cases in the limelight where white women were the main subject of those stories. KyuuA4 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Missing White Women?

It seems the list of missing white women is really long. A lot of these names don't mean anything to me (not that I'm an expert), so I'm wondering if they really belong on this list. What should be the standard for inclusion on the "missing white females" list? Articles from a certain number of national news outlets? It's a grey area, but the list loses all meaning if we're adding women who didn't receive that much air-time simply because they're white and disappeared. On the other, a lot of missing white women do get a lot of air-time... Any ideas? DejahThoris 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed Jamie Bertholf from the list of missing white women, as coverage of her case seems to have been limited to local news sources. The CNN story on the flooding mentions the body of a 15 year-old girl being found, but does not give her name. This does not seem like an example of a media frenzy over a missing white girl. DejahThoris 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Very Interesting

I heard that a five year old by the name of Destiny Norton was found murdered in SLC, Utah. The little girl was playing in her backyard and then was abducted later that afternoon. A few days later, police found the child in one of her neighbor's house. Sevkija Ferhatovic was first held in custody, but later released. Then Craig Gregerson, a 20-year old man was arraigned and booked in for the murder of the child. He raped and suffocated the young girl. The AMBER ALERT, Fox News, MSNBC and my own news channel made comments on it. I feel real bad for the family of the Destiny Norton, and hope there's closure to an already troubling situation. I wish there could of been a great ending. But nevertheless, I want to assume this is one of the issues that fit in MWWS/MPGS. Niqui McCowen (a woman from Richmond, Indiana (but has family and friends in Dayton, Ohio) is still missing after five years, and no representatives of media to bring significant attention towards her. I'm sorry it's America. Yes, America. LILVOKA 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This Article Screams Original Research

I understand that this article documents a real phenomenon, but the article itself is an essay. Joseph N Hall 08:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's loaded with weasel words. Joseph N Hall 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC) By that, I mean - for example (emphasis added):

Missing white woman syndrome, also known as missing pretty girl syndrome, is a tongue-in-cheek term coined by some media critics to reference a form of media hype in which excessive news coverage is devoted to a specific missing or murdered white women and girls, while virtually ignoring missing men, non-white women, or other news stories. According to these critics, reporting of these stories often lasts for several days or weeks, sometimes even months, and displaces reporting on other current events that some people consider more newsworthy, such as economics and politics. This syndrome appears to be most prevalent in U.S. media, but famous examples can also be found elsewhere in the world, e. g. the United Kingdom.

Joseph N Hall 23:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the Original Research tag without discussion. At the least, place citations in the body of the text where appropriate. Joseph N Hall 03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think there's a real, honest-to-goodness valid article here, but POV, weaselspeak, and original research need to be weeded out. I tried to do a little reshaping...will try to look for more sources on this. NickBurns 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The central part of the article is still awkward but this is definitely going in the right direction now. There are unquestionably enough citations to put together a good article. The problem is/was that the original article was written off the cuff. It's tricky where POV is concerned, because "MWWS" is most often used as a surrogate for an argument about racism, but the subtext is usually not that explicit. The argument is usually a) "If it were a black girl ...." vs b) "Well, the media just gives people what they want." Then "well the public is racist," etc etc. IMO the way to handle this article is to cite and summarize relevant sources in the most matter of fact way possible. It's going to sound a little lopsided because you won't find anyone arguing that the coverage of young kidnap victims isn't out of whack because the facts don't support that. The thing that's important is to avoid extrapolating conclusions from those facts unless there are sources for those conclusions, and also to avoid over-citing sources that clearly have axes to grind beyond simple coverage of the media. Just my (long) $.02. Joseph N Hall 05:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In defense of supposed "weasel words": Some, most, almost, virtually, often, frequently, appears, and other words of that ilk are not prima facie evidence of falsity or bad faith. Granted, high school lessons in critical thinking and writing often group them together under the label of "weasel words" in an effort to make students aware of their potential use in deliberately misleading arguments. That doesn't permanently invalidate their use. "Almost everyone likes cheesecake" is a more accurate statement than Sara Lee's "Nobody doesn't like cheesecake." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.252 (talk • contribs) November 18, 2006

POV

There is absolutely no discussion about how this thing could be false. There has been no scientific paper or real discussion in news media that discusses this topic. To have it on this site means that those who dispute this thing should have their say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auno3 (talk • contribs) September 24, 2006

It's certainly a very low quality article. It doesn't need an endlessly-growing list of "MWWS victims." That could be a list - I suppose. The section about "Media Involvement" is an original essay with no references or citations and should be completely eliminated. As I said above, I don't have any problem with the idea that there is a media bias in the reporting of missing persons - it's quite arguably real. It is probably a worthwhile topic although at its heart it is just a summary of editorial material. But it should be limited to coverage of the term "MWWS" and definitely not developed into a lengthy position piece. Joseph N Hall 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow the "what links here" link for fun. "Vox populi, Vox Dei" --Jerome Potts 07:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (no it's not mine)

This topic needs some hard statistical analysis

And by statistical analysis, I mean someone needs to compare the kidnapping/murder frequencies of white and non-white females (a rather arbitrarity distinction in many cases) with the frequencies of TV reports of kidnapped/murdered white and non-white females. Citing individual cases proves absolutely nothing about any bias that may or may not exist, even if you cite 100 cases. To really prove that a bias exists or doesn't exist, you'd need to look at all the data for, say, 5 years of kidnappings/murders and TV reports.

This would be quite an undertaking, but until such a study is done, any statement that there is a media bias is emotionally-based conjecture and therefore worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarscources (talk • contribs)

You're right, of course. We do need to report it as an accusation, since it's a real accusation that is prevalent, but since there aren't any real studies, we shouldn't report that the accusation is established fact.

Also note that Michelle Malkin is quoted as referring to it as "missing pretty girl syndrome" without the racial aspect, and I think a much better case could be made for it that way. Ken Arromdee 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

i really really prefer when people use "abducted" rather than "kidnapped", especially when applying to an adult. Thanks to the British, they can speak properly. --Jerome Potts 07:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's interesting how the minority children who have received national attention are mysteriously left out. In all fairness, this article makes no mention of:

• Aarone Thompson
• Quadrevion Henning
• Purvis Parker
• Asha Degree
• Diamond and Tionda Bradley
• Ahmad King
• Analyce Guerra
• Tyreek Davis
• Karesse Ebron
• Crystal Figueroa
• Tamra Keepness
• Teekah Lewis
• Elian Gonzalez
• Alexis Patterson
• Monica Sharp
• Rilya Wilson
• Sofia Juarez

No Stone Unturned 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start would be the Doe Network [1]. It's one of the few resources that handles missing adult cases. If you crunch the numbers for adults, you find that a) there are more missing black women in the US than women of all other races combined, b) there are more missing men than women, and c) there are far, far more long-term missing persons than most people even dream about. --Charlene 15:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not the place of Wikipedia to do original research the validity of this term, but to document its use and describe its meaning in context. Aside from that, Elian Gonzalez (the only name on your list this news junkie even recognizes) was never missing. --Tysto 19:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While of course that's true, it's also true for most cases that are listed in the article. Whether a case may be classified as MWWS is a decision that Wikipedians can't make; it's original research. All we can do is see if some source describes the case as MWWS, and only then list it. Every case that is not backed up with a source calling it MWWS should be removed. Ken Arromdee 20:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Imette St. Guillen

I removed Imette's listing from the cases of Missing White Woman Syndrome because she is, of course, not white. She is Hispanic, of Venezuelan heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.245.161.245 (talk • contribs) October 28, 2006

What about Lacy Peterson then? She was a Latina. Jcb10

Laci Peterson may have been part Hispanic; however since the public and the media perceived her as being "white," her inclusion in the listing is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.107.41 (talk • contribs) April 10, 2007

Who cares?

Odile Harington was imprisoned in Zimbabwe on charges of spying for the old South African government. She is white and she is missing. South Africa has come a long way since then and some time back a series of adverts were aired on SABC to help celebrate how well South Africans are able to deal with racism and transformation. The ads took the form of two so-called racist jokes told from different perspectives: "How do you save a black man from drowning? You take your foot off his head." and "What do you get if a white man falls off a skyscraper? Who cares." Gregorydavid 15:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

MWWS in the United Kingdom

In the UK, criticism of this type has tended to focus on class and background, rather than race, as most of the population here is white anyway. A contrast is often made between the disappearance and murder of Amanda Dowler and that of Hannah Williams. (A better name might be "missing pretty middle-class girl from Home Counties syndrome", though that doesn't really trip off the tongue...) 217.34.39.123 13:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not so...the uk is VERY ethnically diverse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.146.15 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction there - the UK may be diverse, but the actual percentages of the population are nothing like that found in North America. From the wikipedia articles:

Over 90% of the population of the United Kingdom is white, while even the second most predominant, those of Indian ancestry, is still only 1.8%. By contrast, the USA has 74.67% white, 14.50% Hispanic/Latino and 12.12% African American. sheridan 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist, ignorant and really baseless

The author of this could have done a much better job. I was tempted to just erase the whole mess but I opted instead to remove the names of women that this bigot was using as examples.

Yes I said bigot, who ever wrote this is clearly a pig and it needs to be re-written or taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.80.81 (talk • contribs) January 8, 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this article is an example of Wikipedia's Inherent Flaw, that the NPOV policy only applies to POVs that differ from that of the Average Wikipedian? Please, continue... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk • contribs) July 10, 2007

Way too many articles

There's way too many articles created for people who went missing - many people go missing in the United States every year and just because some of them get media coverage, doesn't mean they're worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. In some cases they are - when their disappearance leads to changes to or creation of laws, or if their disappearance has another lasting effect. But in most cases, this is not true. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Any white males or unattractive white females?

Most of the "missing non-white or non-female" list includes all groups except white males. Most missing white teenage/young college males who go missing also don't receive much media coverage. Also, I prefer the term "missing pretty girl syndrome," because I feel it's more accurate. Aren't there any examples of white non-pretty and/or older females going missing and not getting much media coverage? Jelligraze 18:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You see, if the list included anyone but "white girls" the logical fallacy that is this article's premise would fall apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk • contribs) July 10, 2007

The Media fears to tell the truth really, just look at black on white rape

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28129 most rapists are black really. "In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man."

white missing women are some what safe to report on. the political correctness prevents real discussion on the race of their kidnapper. the head goes into the sand, and it becomes irrelevant and ignored. whereas if a black woman is abducted abused or killed by a white, racial issues will explode and everything would be on the table. in otherwords writing about media bias towards white women is very politically correct and the media practically feeds itself these stories. going the other way and investigating black on white crime or the massive black on white rape statistics is a great way to be labeled as racist and have agitators like jessie jackson and sharpton rip you to shreds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.31.102.254 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

First off, you didn't swipe and copy all the relevant details. As is noted within that article itself:

"The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape. In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally."

That alone makes the report discussed in that article highly inaccurate. Secondly, the part of that article which you swiped is admits itself to be a conclusion based upon incomplete information. Adding to it's errors are the fact that:

• "as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false"

• Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.... It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing."

The former means that many rape cases are followed upon based on whether police choose to follow it up or not. And we all know the wonderful way in which police treat young black males. Well, we do, perhaps you don't. Thirdly, the very fact that you've even bothered to drag a largely irrelevant topic into this subject makes me question your true intentions. If you truly feel that the media are playing politically correct when it comes to black males, then I suggest you do some more research because for the almost the duration of the 20th century ordinary black men rarely made the news at all, unless it was to do with an arrest or something else wholly negative. As a matter of fact the highly popular show Cops was launched solely off the basis of this. News outlets such as Fox and CBS are not even known for their liberal views in regards to non-racial subjects such as sexual discrimination, and American gun laws, let alone black male rapists and their white female victims. And for goodness sakes, it's the internet. At least have the nerve to sign your name. The Moving Finger Writes 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

From the linked article: "Editor's note: Lawrence Auster has posted a correction to this article on the legal lynching of the Duke students, the presumption that white males are rapists and racists and the failure to hold blacks and whites to a single standard. ***The statistics in his article were incorrect***, but the points the article makes about liberal hypocrisy and liberal racism were not." From the correction: "If you combine the last ten years of data, you can get better estimates for the rates. The numbers I get are (comparable to table 42) For single-offender rape/sexual assault When the victim is black, the (perceived) race of the offender is white about 6 percent of the time. When the victim is white, the (perceived) race of the offender is black about 12 percent of the time." What does this have to do with the topic of the article though? --Mugsywwiii 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Newsom / Channon Christian

Regarding these two, I think there is no reason to mention their murder in this article - since the article's topic is a (perceived/alleged) bias, the fact that they were murdered is irrelevant (a "bias" would neither imply that only cases of white women missing are reported nor that 'all' cases of white women missing are). This simply isn't a counterexample of any kind.

FWIW, the Snopes article that the text User:75.18.170.62 (using changing IP addresses) inserts links to actually also states this:

Some commentators (as cited in the example reproduced above) have made much of the fact that the bulk of the news reportage about the Newsom/Christian murders has been local (predominantly in Tennessee, where the crimes took place, and in neighboring Kentucky), while the case has received little or no national coverage by major news outlets — a phenomenon attributed to supposedly biased news media loath to report black-on-white crime. (Both Christian and Newsom were white; all five of the suspects arrested in connection with their killings are black.)

However, the notion that every major news outlet in the U.S. (all of them competitive, profit-making businesses) has conspired to ignore what would otherwise be a compelling national story is rather implausible. A more rational explanation might be found in the sober observation that murders — even decidedly horrific murders — are unfortunately too frequent an occurrence in the U.S. for all of them to garner national attention. The cases that do tend to attract prolonged, nationwide coverage are ones exhibiting a combination of factors (e.g., scandal, mystery, sexual elements, celebrity involvement, shockingly large numbers of deaths, victims who especially elicit sympathy) that make them particularly fascinating and compelling to the public at large, such as the still-unsolved murder of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, the mysterious disappearance (and death) of pregnant Laci Peterson, the massacre of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, and the celebrity trial to determine whether actress Lana Clarkson committed suicide or was killed by reclusive record producer Phil Spector.

Everyone's more than welcome to disagree and discuss this matter, but please don't just reinvert the material again (complete with a misspelling of Newsom's first name). Edit warring is harmful. -- Schneelocke 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This case is NOT a counter-example of the phenomenon that is the topic of this article. National attention to a non-white or non-female missing person would be a counter-example. Non-reporting of a single case that is not even a missing person case is completely irrelevant. As pointed out above, the Snopes article even highlights the fact that you can't draw any conclusions from the lack of media attention to this story. --Mugsywwiii 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above - this has little, or nothing, to do with this article. --Haemo 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney

I'm surprised Faye Turney isn't mentioned in this article, as a high profile example of MWWS outside the US. During the sailor's captivity, it sometimes seemed as though she was the only captive, so disproportionate was the attention given to her in the media. This article in New Statesman speculates about the awareness in the British press and government of the psychological impact of capturing a woman, and on the awareness on the part of the Iranians. Thoughts anyone? Martin 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tightening up the introduction

I have made the following changes:

• I added a second sentence to the definition statement at the top to clarify what makes a particular case an (alleged) example of MWSS.
• I added some references to the first sentence to identify print (not blog) examples of the syndrome being described.
• I moved the material in the third paragraph, which only explained some links, to the links section at the end.

I left the second paragraph alone because it needs more thorough reworking than I have had time to give it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelltd (talk • contribs) May 31, 2007 (UTC)

MWWS Family Guy

I don't see why the Family Guy MWWS-reference was removed. Sure, it was unsourced, but only two out of the five other "parodies" (should probably be "References in Pop Culture") have sources. I think that was a fairly good example of MWWS; a white girl dead and the world is saddened, a Mexican/Spanish girl dead and "that's not news." --Piroteknix 01:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

'The last Family Guy bullet, mentioning Cleveland, is one of the most poorly-constructed sentences I've ever had the displeasure of reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.163.123 (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we help Kelsey Smith

Kelsey Smith is from the Kansas City area and she was abducted at Target by a person of interest. Could you help the family find her! Also, could you tell Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the major three not to oversaturate the coverage for tabloid ratings. Let's hope they're is a happy ending toward this. LILVOKA 11:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article is nonsense

Good candidate for AfD. None of the cites directly supported the statements made. Lot of biased POV pushing it seems like. Go whine somewhere else wikipedia is not a place for you to help fabricate terms and attack certain social/ethnic/gender groups with miscites, lies and POV. Fourdee 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. This article was quoted to the excessive tabloid coverage over women who are based on the following: White, pretty, suburban, honor student, Republican (or Democrat), prominent family, coverage by major networks, cable news frenzy, and undetermined conclusion to outcome of missing person. You can nominate this article for AFD, but I contest this as a (personal) vendetta or something of equal or lesser value on your part. I can't assume that you are a pro-white or racist, but in turn your article history and your comments left here are determining a judgement I hate to conclude about yourself. Anyways, I am voting for the article to be keep. LILVOKA 05:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am definitely "pro-white" and I have absolutely zero shame in admitting being especially protective of of pretty, healthy, etc. european-descended women and I find this article extremely offensive in general and clearly designed to lower the public esteem and status of those people, especially as phrased. At the least it needs to be properly cited. Most of it is not cited and the citations that do exist don't necessarily support the statements made. And for example if there were a general public perception of "excessive" coverage of the matter why would it continue? The news works on ratings, people watch it, therefore presumably the general impression is that there is the right amount of coverage - we need some good citations for this and balance. Citing a bunch of racially-motivated-hatred-of-the-status-of-pretty-white women is just a hate campaign and as it is the article doesn't even really have citations for many of the controverisal statements. This is the rawest bunch of shitty really fucking shitty hatred I've seen on wikipedia and this reminds me of some important values I have. There you have it. Your own comments leave me coming to some conclusions I hate to draw about "yourself" so it's probably pretty mutual. Maybe we can still work together though. There are relevant policies and this page violates them at present. Fourdee 06:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Another suggestion, why don't you call the article Media Darling, because you seem to have an issue that "missing white woman syndrome" or "missing pretty girl syndrome". I am guessing you be up in arms if a black person was involved in a murder of any of these women aformentioned on the list of these media darlings. So far your protest for AFD is not getting any steam, and trying to devert this article due to your personal vendetta towards others (as in regards to the typical hatred towards Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jewish, Islam, self-hatred and hate of whites) is getting you nowhere! You are entitled to you views and your personal beliefs. But as the saying goes: "You are more of an island to yourself". LILVOKA 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You need to stop with the personal attacks and monkey business. I am also having trouble making sense of your English. Fourdee 16:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This a not a game Fourdee! Stop with the personal attacks, racist rhetoric and the unprofessional criticism. LILVOKA 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The article itself is racist; it makes an issue of the perceived ethnic or racial identity of some persons, rather than their personal characteristics. At any rate, this is all ratings-driven. People care about what they care about and thankfully I don't think there is any social agenda that could really change that. Fourdee 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Once again WRONG. Fourdee, you are right on rating driven coverage, and you are right, their is racial insensitivies towards this article. But when you hear Natalee Holloway in Aruba, or the love affair of Beth Twitty and John Ramsey, hmmm.... When you hear about Kelsey Smith memorial sites and the abductor's Myspace page, uh..... I'm sorry your plans to foil this article is not picking up any steam. So I guess, we'll compromise, not agree. Cause it's not like I am going to violate the 3RR rule just to prove a point. I am not going to vandalize your page to prove a point. I am willing to extend this discussion towards the motivation of why does the media cover missing people stories, nothing else. This assumption that "black on white crime" is something a part of reverse discrimation. In turn does any of these victims have a black person accused of murdering these people? Is this mentioned in this article? I believe that "black on black" crime is very high, I believe that crime is not blind. LILVOKA 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I find it difficult to understand what you are saying but I get the gist of it.

• If you admit that the coverage just reflects what the public cares most about, what's the point? Seems to be a condemnation of the public, not the media. What's with the long list of examples, all the nonsense? Seems like this article could be summed up in one sentence: "The American public cares a lot more about attractive white women than any other category of person." The rest is fluff.

• What's the citation for the title of the article ("MWWS"). Wouldn't a better title be something like "Bias in media coverage of missing persons" rather than a term which may or may not appear in any given treatment of the subject?

• If you question the material I've introduced, what about the remainder of the article which contains many uncited or improperly cited assertions?

• This article pushes an agenda. The agenda is to attack the status of a number of qualities: whiteness, femininity, attractiveness, thinness, etc. It should be treated at a distance by wikipedia like any other social agenda that attacks (ascribed) categories of people.

Fourdee 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Good Point. As in earlier statements, I placed the words Dansels In Distress Syndrome and Media Darling as also words. Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome is also coined through Michelle Malkin. That seem pretty neutral. The editors and journalists who created the word, right after the Natalee Holloway disappearance. Eugene Robinson (Washington Post), Gwen Ifill (PBS), Michelle Malkin (Hot Air) and many others (including myself), have gotten tired of soft news stories that show pretty women lost or murder and assumption of guilt and taloid journalist (or cable networks) lust for ratings. But note: I created the article in 2005, and since then the article took flight. So to place this as racial bias, you are sorta right, but you are also wrong. When the next missing person come forth, you start to realize how much time can the MSM (mainstream media) devote themselves to this person! LILVOKA 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being patient, honest and trying to work toward a good article. I apologize for losing my patience above. Fourdee 12:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the media gives an amazingly disproportionate amount of attention to some cases. But--"Missing white woman syndrome" seems to me to be interjecting racism into a situation that's much more complex than simple racism. I did a Google search for the various terms--quite frankly, none of them have much currency. "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome", about 900 hits, "Missing White Woman Syndrome", about 600, "Damsels in Distress Syndrome," 8 hits, "Media Darling"--countless, but most not relevant. So, I think that the article title should be "Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome". Marieblasdell 05:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proportionate to what? Seems to me (personal opinion) that by nature the TV networks are excellent at adjusting their programming to what people want to watch. Whatever combination of morbid fascination, ill will and adoration is at play in this just reflects what people tune in for. It's a mirror of many diverse facets of our society, and in an encyclopedia article deserves a more in-depth treatment than "coverage of white women; the media is racist, here's a list" Fourdee 12:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. This article pushes an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk • contribs) July 10, 2007 (UTC)

Prune original research from the list

This survived AFD, but many comments were made complaining of the extremely long list of names. Having dozens of arbitrarily selected names actually diminishes the encyclopedic nature of the article, when they are names most readers do not recognize. Literally tens of thousands of white females disappear or are killed each year, and not all get the full Laci Peterson/Natalie Holloway/Jessica Lynch treatment which gave rise to the coining of the term. It is original research for an editor to reaad about a white female who disappeared or was murdered and on their own say-so add the name to this article. Some of the names were not hyped on CNN or Fox by Nancy Grace, Greta Van Susteran and such, and no commentator complained about the amount of coverage they were given, so they simply should be deleted, as an indiscriminate list of information. To be included, the name should be listed chronologically as an example if an article in a reliable source which uses it as an example of "Missing white woman" or "missing white girl" syndrome or phenomonon. Just being in the news for being murdered or disappearing is not enough to justify inclusion in this article. They should be index cases that commentator point to in describing the missing white girl/missing white woman/damsel in distress media frenzy. Similarly non-white, non-female, non-photogenic victims should only be listed if similarly reliable sources have held them up as underreported cases. It is not up to individual Wikipedia editors do do the original research of making that content decision. Use inline cites at the first use of a given source reference, and the followup cite form for later uses. As an example, Natalee Holloway, Lori Hacking, and Laci Peterson are listed in [2] at CNN.com, Tuesday, March 14, 2006, "Diagnosing 'Missing White Woman Syndrome'" In addition Chandra Levy, Taylor Biehl (Taylor Behl, and the "runaway bride" Jennifer Wilbanks," were listed in [3] CNN.com, "Showbiz tonight transcript, March 17, 2006. Natalee Holloway, Jennifer Wilbanks , Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart, Lori Hacking, Chandra Levy, JonBenet Ramsey and Jessica Lynch are listed as examples at [4] The Washington Post, in "(White) Women We Love" by By Eugene Robinson, Friday, June 10, 2005; Page A23. Elizabeth Smart, Laci Peterson and Dru Sjodin are listed at [5] "Have you seen her? When Black women disappear, the media silence can be deafening. While the families of the missing struggle to bring national attention to their lost loved ones, they sift through the clues and pray for a miracle." in Essence, July, 2005 by Kristal Brent Zook. No real point is served in subjectively deciding via our original research that additional names belong on such a list or in such a category, unless there are new editorials or journal articles about the syndrome listing some new highly hyped examples the news channels use to build ratings at the cost of not covering wars and such. The historic cases from the early 2oth century should be removed unless a writer at a reliable source says they are early cases of the phenomenon. Ther girl killed in the 1920's got less publicity than Bobby Franks, the boy kidnapped and murdered by Leopold and Loeb, for instance. The external sources should be incorporated into the article via inline cites, and only names mentioned in them should be included in any list.Edison 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some reliable source for each name, claiming that this particular missing woman got more media attention than her death or disappearance deserved. Otherwise, it's OR. Marieblasdell 15:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source for the "Missing white woman syndrome". [6] In "Race and Justice Scholar," Volume 1, Number 2, October 2005, Vernetta D. Young of Howard University, says in "From the Chair" "The 'Missing White Woman Syndrome' was acknowledged in an effort to explain the media's coverage of Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, and other missing white women and its failure to cover the disappearance of Tamika Houston, a twenty-four-year-old African-American female from South Carolina. Cases involving the largest number of missing personsmales, also received very little media attention." Google News archive has a number of stories onthe topis [7]. There I find "Race Bias in Media Coverage of Missing Women?; Cheryl Hines Dishes on New Show - Part 1" Source: The America's Intelligence Wire. Publication Date: 17-MAR-06. (Financial Times) It described the "missing white woman syndrome" and in it Sheri Parks, Associate Professor, University of Maryland says "Like everybody else, I call it the missing white woman syndrome." They discuss Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy, Natalee Holloway, Lori Hacking, Taylor Behl (Biehl), and all the breathless nonstop media coverage they got, in distinction to the lack of coverage of LaToyia Figueroa, who was missing pregnant, and black. Then there is CBS, November 10, 2005, "The Public's Eyes: Natalee Plus Celebrities Equals Hits Hits Hits" by Brian Montopoli, who said "Media critics regularly pillar (sic) news outlets for focusing on the Holloway story as well as other so-called 'missing white woman' stories. I can't deny I cringe a little bit when I see people like Greta Van Susteren yakking on about it show after show, hour after hour." Another lengthy analysis of the "missing white woman syndrome is in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [8] "Runaway bride latest chapter of old story " by Eugene Kane, which says "The Wilbanks story, played out over the span of several days, fit the perfect profile for what I and some friends refer to as the MWWS, or 'missing white women syndrome.'" He says this is when "the national media goes totally ape-wild over a missing white woman in far greater proportion than the particular local-interest story deserves. " He discusses the reasons for the phenomenon, and mentions Elizabeth Smart, Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, and Audrey Seiler, of University of Wisconsin-Madison, who he says faked her own disappearance. Proving it's widespread currency is a Spanish language story which discusses it, "LA PIEDRA EN EL ZAPATO. Lágrimas de cocodrilo " "(The stone in the shoe; Crocodile tears" Clave Digital. 6/13/2006, which says "Durante los últimos años, en los Estados Unidos ha sido tema de análisis público lo que llaman el “missing white woman syndrome” (síndrome de la mujer blanca perdida)Describe la tendencia de los grandes medios de comunicación estadounidenses a desplegar todos sus recursos para cubrir los casos de desaparición de mujeres jóvenes y blancas." My translation: "During recent years, in the U.S. there has been public analysis in the news called "missing white woman syndrome" which describes the tendency of major media in the U.S. to unfurl all its resources to cover the disappearance of young white women." Edison 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Real Life Example

I'm not going to put it on the article, but consider this:

When Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, around the same time, a younger black girl by the name of Alexis P. (last name removed) was kidnapped in Milwaukee. Smart was all over the national news. Alexis was only over the local news. Just goes to show that the article isn't as much of OR as you think. Whsitchy 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually... it's mentioned in the article... but felt like saying it anyway Whsitchy 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether this exists; the question is whether reputable sources use the term described in the title of the article and whether the citations directly reflect statements made without any intervening synthesis. Another question is whether the article is balanced with other perspectives on this, whether it includes sociological explanations and justifications from the media (for example that it may be ratings-driven), and whether this article in its current state is being edited to promote a certain political or social agenda (POV editing). Fourdee 17:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessie Davis and Bobby Cutts

Jessie Davis and Bobby Cutts, Jr. are in the news. Another reason for Missing Pretty Girl/MWWS. I am applaud by over saturation of media nuts. Note: I am from Ohio, and I have been on a mission into getting the story of two eldery women who went missing two months ago LILVOKA 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

All but 2 of the examples were unsourced, or (in most cases unreliably) sourced with no reference to MWWS. Please be very careful to note reliable sources when making claims of media bias. Please note I am making no comment on the general validity of thie article, or the tragedies suffered by those mentioned, just a routine per-policy cleanup. Deiz talk 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right! I agree with Deiz talk. We need to get a source appropriate for the article. Deiz agrees that the article is relevant and necessary, but we need to find the sources. There will be no reverts until we get all the sources. LILVOKA 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He does? I missed that meeting. Deiz talk 12:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stuff should be sourced, yes, but I don't think removing all the examples and leaving only two is the answer. If there are only two examples, this would not even be a phenomenon and would not merit its own wiki page. Most of the cases, the source is simply the intense media scrutiny. In their articles, the media's not gonna write "by the way, this coverage is a case of missing white woman syndrome." - July 8, 2007

Well, the media isn't a monolith. Plenty of valid sources criticize one or another aspect of the media. If this is a valid phenomenon, (and even if it isn't), there'll be sources. The problem with saying: 'the source is simply the intense media scrutiny' is that that is, by definition, original research. (And, if you check the article history, you'll see that it'd gotten badly out of hand, as people added every case of a 'missing white female' who'd ever gotten any media publicity. The existance of that list actually discredited the entire article--I mean, Patty Hearst as an example of 'missing white woman syndrome! So, it was stripped down to the bone, and people who can find legitimate sources can build it up again. Marieblasdell 23:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Some people get it, and some people don't. :) Deiz talk 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the section above "Prune original research" in which 3 reliable and independent sources are cited which describe the syndrome and list names as examples. You cannot legitimately claim a lack of sources or that it is original research. Edison 16:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

needs to be marked as fictional without valid study

Study needs to control for class, race, neighborhood, Everything but race, and show this supposed garbage. This isn't even possibly a "syndrome" and the entire article is trash that should have been deleted as racist rhetoric long ago. I wonder if one could write an article on "Jews and the communism syndrome". don't think so, but I could sure come up with a lot "dirt" and notable people/sources to quote. I don't know how this trash has survided so long here. 68.187.117.71 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk • contribs) July 10, 2007

For me or for you to do here the "study" you describe would not be allowed, because it would constitute original research". See the section above "Prune original research" in which 3 reliable and independent sources are cited which describe the syndrome and list names as examples. Edison 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix or delete

This sounds like an essay. Remove the POV and putting it where it belongs: in pages concerning media. MWWS is an element of media bias, which is legitimately an aspect of media, particularly television. 66.218.190.100 20:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"including women and children"

What is the concept behind the media usage of the phrase "including women and children"? --Voidvector 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

- To subtly indicate that non-adult-male lives are worth more? ^_^; --JoseBC

I know that. Guess I didn't ask properly, I was wondering if there is a technical name for it. --Voidvector 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chivalry is as much about keeping women in their place as it is about protecting women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.210.85 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann

I'm surprised to find no mention of the presumably kidnapped Madeleine McCann. The McCann case is a perfect example of how media has been used/manipulated in order to increase awareness of the missing girl. The disappearance has been major news in Great Britain and Portugal and other European countries as well. --Jambalaya 17:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

...(language objected to removed)... people care more about violence against white women. That's what the news media reflect - they work on ratings. Stop this smear campaign to attack the higher status whites have. It's racist POV-pushing. This article is a lot of nonsense and cites unreliable nonsense sources and is all about a racially-motivated attack on the social status of certain persons. This is probably the best example of an attack page on wikipedia. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 18:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I smell a troll and someone low on self-confidence. --Jambalaya 22:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Which people care more about violence against white women. White rascists obviously but nobody else and they are an unnotable minority. The reason we dont mention McCaan is she is a little girl and so doesnt fit inot the woman bit of the article title, SqueakBox 22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never thought that Madeleine fitted with MWWS. There has been no evidence of a fit with this syndrome and there is the fact that Madeleine is a girl. All one to four year olds look cute and Ben Needham had very wide publicity and still gets some media mentions, 16 years on. I've always put the, undoubtedly excessive, media coverage to a skilled and slick media organisation effort by clued up and well connected parents. TerriersFan 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV2

This article is dreadfully unbalanced as it ios only interested in presenting this alleged syndrome as the truth. There has been coverage int he UK media that black murder victims get more covergae, I'll see if I can dig something out. We must present this article neytrally and until we do the NPOV tag should remain, SqueakBox 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not about black murder victims. MWWS exists, and therefore is neither "alleged" nor untruthful. Suggesting otherwise is, given the range of reliable sources cited in the article, hard to justify. This article is well sourced and absent of any more compelling reasons to show it is biased, I don't see the problem. I couldn't be further removed from any of the issues in this article - I've never known a missing woman, or become in any way emotionally or otherwise involved in an issue surrounding a missing woman of any colour. SqueakBox: Can you say the same? Deiz talk 02:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not well referenced, its badly referenced and appears to be referenced to pursue a POV agenda, ie that the concept exists. And of course its also about black murder victims (and yellow (ie oriental) vixctims as well) as if such victims have their murders investigated properly it disproves what is, at the end of the day, a rascist theory. NPOV demands both sides, merely refencing one side may fulfil WP:RS but if fails WP:NPOV. I met a (white, lesbian) woman who then got murdered while hitchhiking a few weeks later but I have no deeper involvement than that so I am the same as you in terms of personal experience. Its bad form to deny an NPOV tag and nothing you say remotely justifies your removal of the tag, SqueakBox 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Why does this or any article need two NPOV messages? Why am I being accused of trolling for removing a duplicate tag? How on earth is the article "badly sourced"? I just don't get any of what you're saying. Deiz talk 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt need 2, let skeep mine eh? Please stop trolling which your removing my NPOV tag without addressing the issues clearly is, it simply is not acceptable to dispute the NPOV tag without addressing the issues, SqueakBox 03:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There is no reason to clutter the article with multiple templates when one will serve the same purpose. This isn't even a content dispute; it's an attempt to minimize clutter in the article. If you think it's NPOV then you're welcome to assert that but your insistence on "your" NPOV template is quite bizarre and not at all collegial. --ElKevbo 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

THis certainly is a content dispute, remove other folks taghs but not mine because I disputye your completely unjustified tremoaval of my tag when I have fully explained my reasons. This is pure trolling, please stop, SqueakBox 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a break and stop edit warring. And come back with some apologies for the editors you are labeling as "trolls". --ElKevbo 03:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(Ed conf)Maintenance tags do not belong to "you", or any other editor. The multiple issues box is there to remove tag clutter, hence they should all be in the box. If you can't find reliable sources to back up what you're saying about the "falsehoods" surrounding this issue then this is probably heading for a request for comment. Deiz talk 03:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Outline of news media involvement

Sorry to butt in but the section Outline of news media involvement is the part about which I have always had most concern. It seems to me to be OR, is certainly unsourced and is of doubtful relevance. Would not the article be improved if it were simply taken out? TerriersFan 04:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means remove any unsourced info / OR from the article. Deiz talk 04:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make things worse by unilaterally removing material so let me put it another way - are there any objections to me removing this section? TerriersFan 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any objection I have now removed the section. TerriersFan 16:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just something to add to the page

Here's something to add to the article whenever it's unlocked:

In the Family Guy episode Saving Private Brian, Peter Griffin claims that 'all of America gets distracted whenever a cute white girl dies.' We then see a scene in which news reporters are saddened by the death of what they think is a white girl, but then they change from sad to uninterested when they learn that the girl is a minority.--Andrewdt85 06:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No, please no. Spare us from that kind of trivia. --Jambalaya 16:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Family Guy references everything, so there'd be no point. Also, I did not honestly think this would be a Wikipedia article. I'm actually kind of surprised that this type of article exists, but then again I've basically deemed Wikipedia to now be a collection of garbage compared to what it was before the rise of "Youtube celebrities" and the likes. I'll save/write the worthwhile articles. Zchris87v 07:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Formula from America: the Book

{{editprotected}}

The parody equation from Jon Stewart's book is math-formatted incorrectly. Could someone please change

<math> \ Minutes of Coverage=Family Income*(Abductee Cuteness/Skin Color)^2+Length of Abduction*Media Savvy of Grieving Parents^3</math>

in the "Parodies of MWWS" section to

<math>
Minutes\,of\,Coverage = Family\,Income \times 
\left ( \tfrac{Abductee\,Cuteness}{Skin\,Color} \right ) ^2 + 
Length\,of\,Abduction \times
Media\,Savvy\,of\,Grieving\,Parents^3
</math>

which will render as: $Minutes\,of\,Coverage=Family\,Income\times \left({\tfrac {Abductee\,Cuteness}{Skin\,Color}}\right)^{2}+Length\,of\,Abduction\times Media\,Savvy\,of\,Grieving\,Parents^{3}$

Done. I've also unprotected the article since discussion here has died out. --- RockMFR 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing black woman syndrome

An article on the reverse will end the reverse discrimination about "missing white woman". OK, so you say come up with the sources. Not that this article has any. Nor has it gone away. So to not apply a double standard, the Missing black woman syndrome article should be kept. EgraS (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'Missing black woman syndrome' is none existant, so i doubt that. Wikiepdia is not a soapbox --Neon white (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation?

Has it been noted anywhere that the sexual orientation of the victim seems to be a mitigating factor, along with gender, race, class, attractiveness, etc.? A prime example of this is the case of Alexandra Flanagan, a lesbian who went missing and was later found dead: http://www.thestar.com/article/266813

70.48.36.135 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is as much noted as say wealth, age and race. If you can find a source it'd be useful but i'm not you will find too many. --Neon white (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious problems

I think there is definitely something to MWWS but this article needs serious work.

1. In the first paragraph under "National Missing Persons Helpline report", the two examples that are used to "show" MWWS are Hannah Williams and Danielle Jones. The problem: the key elements purported by the introduction are missing. The victims have the same gender, same race, about the same age, and about the same attractiveness. One received more attention than the other, according to the source, because of socio-economic status. Since that is apparently not one of the attributes contributing to MWWS, the example (and thus the entire NMPH report) doesn't fit the article.

2. The next example, supposedly of someone who should have received more media attention, is Damilola Taylor, a young black man from Nigeria who was murdered. Okay... what is the KEY difference in the cases? Oh, I know, he wasn't ever missing! The article states that he was cut on the leg with knife, bled in a stairwell for 1/2 hour, and taken to the hospital, where he died. At what point was he missing? Was there any need to have a mass-media-aided search effort? This example cannot be usefully compared to MISSING people unless we expand the scope of the article to coverage of crime in general based on the race of the victim.

3. The list of "possible instances of MWWS" is suspect. Absolutely no justification is given for the entries. I think justification is critical because otherwise we can add any missing person story ever published where the missing person is a white woman. Are they ALL examples of MWWS? I've never heard of half the names on that list -- anecdotal, I know, but the important part is WHY I recognize the rest of them. As an example, look at Chandra Levy -- gee, MAYBE the coverage had something to do with the fact that she was an intern for a Congressman and they were having an affair.

4. "Examples of possible bias in missing person cases" -- isn't that synonymous with the preceding section? I mean, based on the contents of the sections I see that the first is for examples of bias FOR white women and the second for bias AGAINST others, but the section names should reflect that.

5. Dail Winwiddie and Shelton Sanders -- There is no mention about *why* Dail Dinwiddie showed up in the news after so many years (I had never heard of either of them, so I did a quick search to see for myself). A man was found guilty of four murders of young women similar to Dail some 9 years after Dail's case. He lived very close to where Dail went missing, at the time when Dail went missing, so there was suspicion that he had been involved in her case. We have to ask ourselves, is it misleading to suggest that the "continued" news coverage of Dail was a case of MWWS, when in reality it A) was not continuous coverage and B) had a pretty legitimate cause?

I know Wikipedia isn't a place for original research, so hopefully somebody can clarify for me whether there is a distinction between original research in screening information versus writing statements in the article. If so, I propose that a suitable definition of MWWS be provided (and I think the definition given in the intro is fine) and then only examples that *match* that definition (shown by references) are to be allowed in the article. If a source says "Elizabeth Smart was white, young, female, and pretty, and she received a lot of national media coverage" that is not enough. It remains to be shown that a substantially similar case involving someone who does not possess those characteristics would NOT receive the media coverage -- that is, after all, our *definition* of MWWS. In the example of Elizabeth Smart, the case would have to involve a massive local search effort (over 1500 volunteers, $250k reward, etc) and unusual circumstances (kidnapped from her own bed, witnessed by younger sister) only to be ignored by the news media.

If there is no distinction, then I think that it is just as much original research to say "Elizabeth Smart is an example of MWWS" as it is to say she isn't, since no source given in the article actually says she is an example using a compatible definition.

Stdarg (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (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)

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)

IS THIS EVEN 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)

PC Non-sense

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)

The subject of this article is notable and well sourced. [9] 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)

The wording of the term

There seem to be quite a few different wordings of this concept. 'Missing White Girl Syndrome', 'The pretty missing white girl syndrome'. Do we need a sectipn about the different wordings? --neon white talk 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

I strikes me that there really aren't any reliable sources to verify that this "syndrome" actually exists. I am not questioning whether or not it occurs, or that some articles claim it occurs. I am saying that unless the sources actually demonstrate disproportionate reporting of missing girls based on their race/ethnicity then there is no real proof that it is occurring. You would have to show the number of white girls abducted vs. those actually reported, then do the same for girls of color. Then you would have to look at the proportion of girls of color vs. white girls in the area we are talking about. (Are we just talking about the United States?) to see if there is a disparity. The sections of the article that list missing white women that were publicized and black women who were not publicized don't prove anything out of the context of actual totals. Without this proof, it strikes me as a rather bigoted idea. Seems to me that if this imbalance actually exists then it should be verifiable. Efforts to change it should fall short of demonizing "white" victims. They are all victims of crime, and discussing this phenomenon should not be at the expense of other victims. In advocating for increased news coverage for this perceived deficit, victims should not be marginalized by their "whiteness". Otherwise, the entire "syndrome" has the appearance of being generated by racial animosity, not verifiability. Has research actually been done to demonstrate the numbers of reported cases vs. actual cases, and how that relates to racial proportions in the U.S. census? EyePhoenix (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The sources are in the first paragraph of the article. We don't need to prove it's accuracy only that it exists. It's the same as any notable theory or hypothesis. They don't need to be proven to have an article. --neon white talk 23:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". But I don't believe that at any point did I question the existence of this article? Are you speaking to someone else perhaps? Because I didn't see you address any of the actual points that I raised. Theories need evidence to back them up. EyePhoenix (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles about things which substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We are not the deciders of what is "truth." We are definitely not a "peer reviewed scientific journal" where experts decide what is "truth" and write articles based on their original research. There is an article because of the several articles in mainstream media which used the term "missing white woman syndrome" or "damsel in distress syndrome" to describe the round-the clock coverage of the disappearance of several missing white women on CNN and other news media, compared to a lack of coverage of missing persons who were not young, pretty and white.

Wikipedia suffers, too!

In the section related to alleged bias, only three of the eight people referenced have their own article. And one of those people is Kristen Smart, a pretty white girl, being used as a counterexample! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.138.239 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And now we even have a featured article on a missing white woman. 86.154.3.254 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Britt Lapthorne??? MWWS??? She's Australian FFS!

How is she related to this at all??? Her dissapearance was as widely documented as any other missing PERSON in Australia! Am I to understand that just because she's white and has gone missing then she's done something wrong??? Maybe this article applies in the USA, but not to Australians. I'm removing her.58.107.179.146 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

She would belong in the article if and only iff reliable sources called the coverage of her disappearance an instance of "missing white woman syndrome." This is not a list of people who disappeared, and it is original research for an editor to decide that the coverage was so vast it is an instance of mwws. We wait for secondary reliable sources to make that call. Edison (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate =)58.107.179.146 (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)