Talk:Missing white woman syndrome/Archive 2

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


 * 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; even decidedly horrific  murders &mdash; 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 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
 * 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.

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

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  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  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  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 "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". 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 . 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  "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.  Dei z  talk 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right! I agree with  Dei z  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.  Dei z  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. :)  Dei z  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?  Dei z  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.  Dei z  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.  Dei z  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.  Dei z  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
The parody equation from Jon Stewart's book is math-formatted incorrectly. Could someone please change $$ \ Minutes of Coverage=Family Income*(Abductee Cuteness/Skin Color)^2+Length of Abduction*Media Savvy of Grieving Parents^3$$ in the "Parodies of MWWS" section to $$ Minutes\,of\,Coverage = Family\,Income \times \left ( \tfrac{Abductee\,Cuteness}{Skin\,Color} \right ) ^2 + Length\,of\,Abduction \times Media\,Savvy\,of\,Grieving\,Parents^3 $$ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mexico
Neither article states her race. BBC mentions she is "blonde, blue eyed." There are non-white races which are "blonde, blue eyed." The article is about "white" woman. Neither article suggests the extensive media coverage is due to MWWS. In fact, the articles suggest that the media coverage was due in part to the parents' aggressiveness: "Farah and Mauricio Gebara issued extraordinary public pleas for help." The case also seems to have gone viral: the articles mention how the case was publicized on social media such as Facebook. This may have been a novelty which amplified media coverage. The point is until we have a RS which discusses the case from a MWWS perspective we are just speculating as to what is behind the extensive coverage. Lionel (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are taking the interpretation of MWWS way too literally and narrowly. In Mexico what would be called brown hair in the United States is called blonde, likewise there are different impressions of what is light and dark skinned.  It's a different impression of what is "white."  While Mexico may have chosen not to dub the media exposure MWWS in English just for you (they speak Spanish there) that doesn't change the fact that it's a classic example of the article's premise.  It's absurd to send people on a wild goose chase for a RS that says MWWS for something that happened in a non-English speaking country.  As far as the social media aspect that's you speculating and proposing original research.--Cybermud (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me draw your attention to the comment at the beginning of the section: "" This proviso is perfectly resonable. Right now the sources do not indicate any link to MWWS (or any other syndrome e.g. Missing Brown Haired Mexican Girl Syndrome MBHMG) whatsoever. If Mexico has a specific manifestation of MWWS then it must be explained using RS, and then examples posited using RS. Do you have any RS that explains MWWS in Mexico? Do you have any RS which links this case to any media-based syndome or phenomenon? Lionel (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for drawing my attention to a a comment inside the wiki but Wikipedia is not self-referencing. You can't point to Wikipedia articles as sources for articles nor as sources for the appropriateness of articles.  If that were possible I'd just point back to my first comment and say that, on the basis of me making it before it is now well-established the second time I make and has new and enhanced validity.  Although the statement itself is reasonable it is not "perfectly reasonable" nor is your interpretation of it reasonable.  It is unquestionable that this abduction in Mexico occurred.  It is also unquestionable that Mexico is one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, the children of prominent politicians can be abducted and it sometimes doesn't make the news (although the politicians themselves will try to keep it quiet too at times.)  Here is one case amongst literally 10's of thousands in Mexico that gets widespread media attention and you are hair-splitting about the fact that it doesn't say MWWS in it explicitly.  If a KKK convention lynches a black man tomorrow and the news articles don't have the word racism in them explicitly can it not be mentioned in Racism?--Cybermud (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you a single source, just one RS, English or Spanish, that speaks to any kind of media bias in reporting female kidnapping in the entire country of Mexico? This isn't too much to ask, is it? Lionel (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point to one source in Mexico of the term "missing white women syndrome" existing? Mexico is the kidnapping capital of the world.  Mayor's are assassinated in broad daylight, the crime there almost cannot be overestimated and the case of a single missing white girl dominates the news and you want to split hairs about whether or not someone used the phrase MWWS?  May I refer you to WP:Common sense?
 * Actually... here you go: [] They even put the phrase in English... and Excélsior is very much a RS. I'm taking off the "off-topic" tag too...--Cybermud (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)