Talk:Disappearance of Lauren Spierer

Vandalism
If the vandalism continues, is there a way to require a registered account to edit the page? It's kind of a big case, not surprising that it attracts vandals. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's called semi-protection and excludes non-registered users and new (non-(auto)confirmed) users from editing the page. See Request for page protection, which is where you'd request such protection. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think this page qualifies? I'm fairly new here and I don't know how the whole thing works. Bali88 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems to constantly be the same IP-address and it looks like it has calmed down for now, so right now, probably not. Should they return, you're probably better off reporting them at AIV (they have already had a final warning), but should they be blocked and "suddenly" a new IP is back to do the same, especially if such happens more than once, or should multiple different IPs and/or non-confirmed accounts start vandalizing the page, then it would probably qualify. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

MWWS
I have removed the section that refers to this case as a case of Missing White Woman Syndrome, especially in comparison to Crystal Grubb. Grubb was white so citing the differences in coverage as an example of MWWS makes no sense. Perhaps Missing Rich, Attractive Woman Syndrome in the case of Spierer. But not white. Clearly neither gender nor race was an issue in the disparity of coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the missing white woman sydrome article, it says "Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase coined by social scientists to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases that involve young, white, upper-middle class women or girls.[1] Sociologists define the media phenomenon as the undue focus on upper-middle class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases concerning missing women of other ethnicities and social classes, or with missing males of all social classes and ethnicities.


 * Perhaps the title of the "syndrome" is lacking, but it's clear that part of the focus is on women of a certain social class vs. lower social classes. I think it's relevant. :-) Bali88 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This source discusses social class and attractiveness as a relevant factor in the coverage disparity. :-) Bali88 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolding
In the inline citations it says there is a consensus that has been reached on the talk page about bolding the times. Where is this consensus? If no such consensus exists, that inline note should be removed. --Lgbtq pride (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize. I posted it on the teahouse and it was thoroughly discussed there. Certainly the issue is up for discussion if someone feels that the differing sources of the timestamps should be noted in another way. What was happening is that people were bolding *all* of them, not because they disagreed with the way it was noted, but because they thought it was a typo. That's why the note is there. Bali88 (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline write up is a bit of a mess. It’s unclear from the write up when Rosman is with her, and the language used implies some bolded times are reports and not camera footage. Someone familiar with the case should take a look at cleaning that up. Basilosauridae (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

"Missing white women syndrome" removal
The reasoning for this sect of information existing is dubious at best. If we are to accept this "phenomenon" put out by social scientists as relevant and worthy of protection as it has been on this page, why have I seen it's seldom usage in other pages not making a similar distinction?

This material was put in the article to draw parallels between Lauren Spierer and Crystal Grubb. Okay. Hundred of thousands of people go missing every year on average. You'd be hard-pressed to not find similar juxtapositions for other cases involving "young, white, upper-middle-class women" and their working-class equivalents. Should this be mentioned EVERYTIME this is suspected to be the case?

No, as a matter of fact this information shouldn't be added to these pages as it blurs the subsets reason for being. If these conjectures are to made constantly, we are losing the pages reason for being. If one is constantly going off on a tangent on how two similar cases MAY OR MAY NOT BE (it's not fact) getting the same coverage, you are simply feeding information that no one is going out of their way to search for.

I haven't read all the pages involving disappearances and missing persons. I'd be lying to you if I'd say I had, however, I've read enough of them to question this ones' content: why here on this page and not others, or, more importantly, why at all? 2Pac4Lyfe (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses what is reported in reliable sources, missing while women syndrome has been reported by several sources which are cited here using the Spierer case as a specific example. Grey joy talk 05:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, okay. If that's the case, I want you to link me to other missing persons cases on Wikipedia that cite this same 'phenomena'. If you can't, I really don't see the incessant need to uphold this section.

It would make sense if the rule of adding MWWS was made more consistent among other pages, rather than the apparent signaling out of this page, the Lauren Spierer case, specifically. I would argue to not put it on any page, rather than all of them, because anyone with open eyes and a clear conscience can see it for the racist, yes, RACIST tripe it clearly is. But, I'm just old-fashioned like that. 2Pac4Lyfe (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about "Missing white women syndrome"
Should this article about the disappearance of Lauren Spierer contain a section about "Missing white woman syndrome" (MWWS)? Grahaml35 (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The somewhat extensive discussion of it here does seem to go a bit beyond the scope of the article, especially as the phrase existed prior to Spierer's disappearance. It might be more appropriate to handle this as a SEEALSO. DonIago (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the section. I think the section is mostly fine with how it is, reflecting the numerous sources that have cited her disappearance as an example of MWWS. I would be fine with removing the overly long quote from the acquaintance, but the article would be incomplete without a section that matches the sources that specifically discuss Spierer and MWWS. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the section. Agree with Cerebral726. It has certainly been widely reported in WP:RS as a case of MWWS. I think the fact that the Indiana Daily Student did an introspective look at their coverage of the two events is interesting and worth a mention. I agree that we could lose the long quote. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the content; not the section heading. I agree with and  that this article loses something significant if the content is relegated to "See also" or removed; keep the content in some measure and fashion. The use of a separate sub-heading however is unnecessary and feels like a WP:STRUCTURE issue. This brief amount of material should be included under the broader section "In the media" to better reflect an encyclopedic presentation and ensure the article errs on the cautionary side of NPOV. --N8wilson 🔔 16:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with removing the section heading as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep most of the content - The MWWS sections seems relevant, well sourced and worthwhile. I think it's fine as it is now, but I don't think too much would be lost if the section title or the quote at the end were to be removed. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove the content. I believe that the content should be fully removed as even some of the biggest cases regarding MWWS do not mention MWWS on their article page such as the Laci Peterson and the Springfield Three. I believe the information regarding Lauren Spierer would be better suited on the Missing white woman syndrome article. If kept, it seems to add undue weight to Lauren Spierer's disappearance and can give the impression the term originated with her case. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may simply be that (unlike this case) in those cases there are no WP:RS referring to it. "The intense press coverage of the disappearance has been dubbed an example of missing white woman syndrome..." makes it vey clear that the term did not originate with this case. But as noted, it is particularly relevant in this case because of the university newspaper's reporting (and its reporting on its reporting). I agree that we could lose the heading. "In the media is sufficient. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, then the Laci Peterson source needs to be revisited as her case in the first example on of a study on Missing white woman syndrome. However, that does not need to be hashed out here. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and implemented the action of keeping most of the content after a week of being open with a fairly stable consensus. Anyone should feel free to revert me if you do not feel the discussion is at it's conclusion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the content. I'll echo what N8wilson is saying, remove the section heading and keep it to a brief summary of the specific facts and a crosslink to MWWS to keep the potential context. Excluding MWWS would also violate NPOV through omission. Basedeunie042 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove (at least some of) the content: are there even any good sources for this? The sources for the first sentence currently used in the article are not about Lauren Spierer; they are about the broader concept of missing white woman syndrome and mention Spierer's name among four or five others in a list. The rest of the material is a story about an article published in a student newspaper, sourced to the student newspaper itself -- why do we care what gets published in student newspapers? These generally aren't reliable sources anyway (WP:RSSM). This article should recount what sources about Spierer's disappearance say, rather than what sources about MWWS say when Spierer is included in a list of names, without any further discussion. I could see a reason to leave the first sentence in, but I don't see why the story about the student newspaper should be here. Endwise (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the content you deleted in light of the ongoing discussion and the fact that the consensus at the moment is to keep a reference. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete any content, I removed a reference which didn't have anything to do with the sentences preceding it. Endwise (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep the section - Well, that is how it has been widely dubbed as. It should be retained. desmay (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)