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)

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)

You are a penis. 128.210.12.36 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (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)

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

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)

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

The subject of this article is notable and well sourced. [1] Your personal opinions of it is not revelant. --neonwhite user page talk 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

If it occurs, then it exists. What the fuck are you talking about? 128.210.12.36 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

This happens in Australia, too. Don't try to fool yourself. It's something that happens in every predominately white country. Happens in the US, Australia, all over Europe, even in some Asian countries. There's no need for senseless US-bashing or any other bias. Australia isn't immune to media corruption. No country is. Telling yourself otherwise only blinds you from the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.230.110 (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Racist!!

This article is speculative and racist and should be deleted! I use wikipedia all the time for a reliable source of information. People like you use it to voice your twisted opinions instead of putting them on a Blog somewhere where they belong! I checked out your "sources" and would note that virtually all of them are biased!! I saw a near verbatum account taken from 'theangryblackwoman.com'. The only factual, intelligent thing associated with this "article" is the complaint put forth by the person who wrote 'PC Non-sense' and I applaud them for their insight! I'm not sure what your motivation is for writing this and I don't care. I am writing Wiki so that ignorant people like you don't pollute this incredible sight with unfounded discriminatory comments and I urge everyone else to do the same.

There's nothing racist about this. It's pretty common knowledge. The media has a tendency to favor stories about pretty white girls over just about every other racial/sexual demographic. It's been that way in the US (and many other countries) for years. Also, if you're using Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, you may need to rethink your sources. Unless this was a poor attempt at satire, in which case disregard anything I say. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.230.110 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is a hell of a terrible argument. It wasn't that long ago that people espoused racial superiority as "common knowledge." The flat earth was "common knowledge."

The term does ignore that the kidnappings at most risk of injury, sexual assault, or death are abductions by stranger. The majority of these victims are, in fact, white female juveniles. Its insulting to the victims.Gfds1234 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that a specific type of racism and sexism exists is not something you can justify on the basis that 'everyone knows it is true', any more than racists can justify their arguments by 'everyone knows it is true'. If facts can be found then facts should be presented, if views are found then views can be presented.158.143.133.60 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenic article.

The stereotypical kidnapping or abduction by a stranger is the cause of only a small fraction of the large figure of people reported missing. U.S. government research demonstrates that the victims of non-family abductions are at the highest risk of injury, sexual assault, or death. The majority of these victims are, in fact, female white juveniles.

The blockquoted data presented in the article immediately after this, if you actually read it, says that only 53 cases per year out of 840 thousand fit the profile of "missing white women syndrome". So I don't see how they reprecent "the majority" of anything. This is just deceptive language attempting to justify the fact that the news media does it. The article also fails to mention that the exceedingly vast majority of child abductions are a) abductions of boys, and b) perpetrated by a close family member, also usually male. --68.255.2.38 (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its the majority of The stereotypical kidnapping or abduction by a stranger. This type of abduction is, as mentioned clearly in the blockquote, the most at risk of injury, sexual assault or death and only constitute a very small fraction of abductions. The majority of the small percentage who are abducted by strangers (and coincidentally at the most risk of injury, sexual assault or death) are "in fact, female white juveniles."Gfds1234 (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This type of article weakens the validity of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.147.210 (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman

The Soham murders is the one that always comes to mind for me in relation to this topic. That pretty picture of the two girls by the clock just before they disappeared really caught the public imagination. The day after the bodies were found I happened to travel to Europe carrying a newspaper reporting on the discovery, which was remarked on by other travellers. German women lamented the news, exclaiming "hubsche Madchen!!" (nice girls, or words to that effect). I was outraged, because even if they'd been little guttersnipes they didn't deserve what happened. So that one presses my buttons. But I don't know if it's ever been discussed in that context. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Race

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

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

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

Audiences

I find it disconcerting that "audiences" are mentioned only once in this article, though the most likely and obvious reason for the bias of the media is their consideration of what their audiences want. People who aren't white, nor pretty, nor female, may consider themselves subject to discrimination, overlooking the true reason that people in the media choose to follow stories their audiences want. Unfree (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"P-C Nonsense" makes a very good point. There is an ugly flip side to this concept, although I don't think it has an acronym. Can any of you recall what happened in Long Beach, California on Halloween 2006? How about in January of 2007 in Knoxville, TN? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.177.248 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

For this article to be valid in a scholarly sense, more research should be done on the targeted audience of media outlets as well as consumption. For instance, one of the best examples of what this article discusses is the back-to-back hardly differing in content hour of Nancy Grace and Jane Valez-Mitchell on HLN. The main people who indulge in this block of television are middle age+, middle-classed, white women. Should we also begrudge the Robin Meade Morning Express program for targetting middle and lower classes white males? Probably, but the point is that for whatever reason, there is a niche here. This article could do better to present its argument if it takes into account socio-economic factors like this. I'm simply unqualified to do that kind of research however, but it is a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.185.221 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Perception Creates Reality

This article is complete bunk. It validates a concept that may or may not have been created by the media, and does not address even the concept of perceptions and beliefs that may exist outside of "reality". Meaning it's taking a media-created myth and attempting to cement into the reality of day-to-day life. That's called POLITICS.

Further, if you are going to advance your lame regurgitation of media-created leftist demons (to give purpose for your political existance) I would say that AT LEAST you would need to provide an objective comparative study tracking missing white women and comparing the news coverage given to them to various other ways of sub-catgorizing people (how you leftists continue to maintain the PERCEPTION of legitimacy). Along the same lines of your lame article, the perception of being legitimate does not make it real unless some "authority" says so. Your lame article attempts to use the "authority" of the wiki to advance your own leftist (and racist) agenda. Problem is, you don't have any objective and provable information, because it doesn't exist and until it does exist all you can do is put lipstick on the pig and hope no one notices that it's a pig.

I notice. It's a pig. It's dirty, ugly, and it smells. Just like your article.

I really like wiki, and I always hear detractors saying things like "Oh, the wiki isn't RELIABLE. "ANYONE" can say anything they want in the wiki." I've never understood what they were talking about until I read this little turd.

99.137.251.249 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

So fix it, unless you're too busy with your work for Palin. If anyone can edit Wikipedia, you can fix the article. Cite sources that point out other facts disproving such a thing exists, for instance, talk about the controversy. --Bluejay Young (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Section removed

While I agree completely that this is a real phenomenon in true crime media coverage, I deleted the section on women who AREN'T examples of MWWS. I don't see how it is relevant or useful to the article. You could put any woman on earth who 1. was murdered or disappeared, 2. was not white, and 3. did not get a lot of media coverage, into that section. In other words that section could run into the millions. All the article really needs, besides a listing of young, pretty white women or girls that got inexplicable media attention (such as Natalee Holloway), is possibly information on how many women as a whole disappear or are murdered every year in various countries. That's what the article the article needs: a list of sensationalized cases of dead attractive white women like Holloway and Laci Peterson. Everybody knows that people who aren't white and aren't attractive are murdered all the time; listing a few examples adds nothing. Vidor (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I could somewhat see your point, but the idea behind the "possible bias" section, was to show a bias, that the examples in that section, received little to no attention, while persons whom were in the "MWWS" (as you say) received extensive attention. I'd think that, in the interest of fairness and proving a potential point/being neutral, listing examples of "potential" MWWS cases and "ignored" cases would be something the article should do. More so, if it can be all out proven if this is the case. --Terran Officer (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

But anything is an ignored case. Anything at all, unless it happens to be one of the rare MWWS cases. Look at it this way--how do you choose WHICH "ignored" cases to put in the article? There is no criteria that I can think of to include Missing Non-White Woman 1-8 and not include Missing Non-White Woman 9-10000. The only exception I can think of is cases in which a MWWS case was closely associated with a Missing Non-White Woman but only the former got any attention. The Jessica Lynch case, wherein Pvt. Lynch got a world of attention but her fellow woman soldiers from the same incident didn't, is an excellent example. Vidor (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The few examples there were there were fine enough to me, it didn't need to be overly burdened with excess examples, merely a couple cases of potentially ignored cases which happened circa (or exactly in conjunction with/during) the time of "alleged" bias (or more termed MWWS), otherwise the article falls short, and tends to be more one sided and doesn't make a ton of sense. The Jessica Lynch case, as you just mentioned is a perfect example to mention on this page, wherein multiple people were taken in the same event (well, battle), and the others got occasional mention while Jessica Lynch was covered constantly. If it's felt that it'd be needed, a rewording/rewriting of the entire article, let alone the sections showing potential examples should be done. As it is, showing examples on "one side" as I call it, seems to be...well, one sided. As for criteria? All I'd figure is, recent (as of the writing) cases that happened concurrently, or semi concurrently (within days to weeks) were case A received extensive (or little to no) coverage while case B received little to no (or extensive) coverage, as opposed to what the previous or next case (again concurrently, or semi, helps if the cases have similar MO's etc...) received. As for choosing? It'd just have to happen like other pages list examples, someone just chose it. Being able to cite references would help, but the point being, listing several cases of potential (or what people could consider) MWWS, with one or two (or none) cases considered by many to be just as important, but largely ignored serves to what some people are saying what the media does (and somewhat, IMO, violates any neutrality policies this wiki may have). Whatever though, I wont argue, It was just a thought I had. --Terran Officer (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to show a ignored case or two as a point of comparison, only if such as case was already used as a comparison by a reliable source? Then it wouldn't be an arbitrary decision, but might still illustrate the point. Mind you, I have no idea what cases are used as comparisons by the media, and I suspect the selection of such a case would warrant the use of particularly reliable sources and only notable cases, if that seems justified. - Bilby (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing Persons Stats

I think this section should be deleted, or at least revised. It mostly consists of a giant block quote, which is to be avoided, from a secondary, non-academic source. In addition, even if the statistics were right at the time, they are now ten years old.CharlesMartel (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)CharlesMartel

• Agreed, and deleted. The only relevant statistic for this article, should we find it, is what percentage of missing persons cases are the pretty young white women (or cute young white girls) that attract so much attention. Vidor (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading section

While the disappearance of Laci Peterson (see list below) became a huge news story, a pregnant black woman named LaToyia Figueroa disappeared from Philadelphia at around the same time and attracted no national attention, despite efforts by her family to enlist the media to help find her. (Figueroa was later found murdered.)

These cases were not 'around the same time', they were in fact 2 or 3 years apart and would have had totally different news to compete with. I also find the last part unnecessary and indicative of bias, as both women were murdered.

In fact, even the comparison of the stories is totally misrepresented in this sentence. It's painting them as being as different as black and white, but let's look at the facts:

• The former case had large scale searches, flyering, ribons, TV coverage, a large reward and internet support.
• The later case had large scale searches, flyering, was featured on Americas Most Wanted and had a reward funded by a philanthropist, a number of rappers and internet bloggers.

I fail to see much evidence of bias for the "missing white woman" here... in fact, I see more bias in the uproar that caused the black community to rally behind the disappearance of a black woman, and in the way an article like this comes about. This article should include a link to reverse discrimination. 81.157.44.101 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

adam morrell

may be a better comparison than damilola taylor for the undereporting of non-white victims of crime. he doesn't even have a wikipedia article.--Mongreilf (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)