Talk:Missing white woman syndrome/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Madeleine McCann

An IP has repeatedly added content about Madeleine McCann:

1. [1], partial revert by myself: [2]
2. [3], reverted by User:SQGibbon here: [4]
3. [5], partial revert by myself again here: [6]

First of all, I have no problem with citing Madeleine McCann's case as an example of "missing white woman syndrome" but there is a number of problems with IP's edits:

• WP:Original research — Unless the citations explicitly link the case to the syndrome then they do not back up the claim. It is original research to draw conclusions from sources yourself. Unless the citation actually includes the words "missing white woman syndrome" or explicitly discusses the media's preoccupation with missing white women, then the source does not belong in the article. Merely selecting sources that the editor believes are an example of this condition is not satisfactory. However, bear in mind we do not need to add every single source we can find per WP:OVERCITE. A couple of good quality sources that specifically discuss the case as an instance of the phenomonen is enough; maybe three or four if something is particularly controversial or is being challenged.
• WP:WEIGHT – This article is about the syndrome, not the McCann case per se. The case only needs to be discussed within the context of the syndrome. The IP has repeatedly added content to the prose section of the article merely citing it as an example of "missing white woman syndrome". This is undue weight. We have a section for cited examples and the McCann case is included there. The prose section is for specifically discussing the syndrome, not for merely citing examples.

Betty Logan (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

1) All sources currently being cited in the paragraph explicitly link the McCann case to Missing White Woman Syndrome. This can be readily verified. In spite of this, you've made repeated attempts at removing these sources from the article under an invalid rationale, frequently employing red herrings as a justification for those edits. This behavior comes dangerously close to the formal definition of vandalism.

2) The notion that the MWWS article is not about the McCann case per se is a non-issue. The present controversy involves but a single paragraph, which has been added to the UK section on account of the Telegraph source in a similar vein to how the Dowler, Payne, Soham, Williams and Jones cases were added on account of the Yvonne Jewkes and Ian Blair sources. This argument constitutes another red herring.

3) As a compromise, I removed all sources which only implicitly linked the McCann case to MWWS, and retained those that explicitly link it to MWWS. This rectified both the issue of undue weight and of overcitation. It did not prevent you from making a renewed attempt at selectively removing this information from the article without providing any clear rationale for your actions.

Since all the prerequisites in terms of cited sources and notability have been met as per standing Wikipedia guidelines, I'm confident we can now put this issue to rest. 2A02:1810:108:3300:4A3:A2:95BB:324E (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have further removed some inadequate sources (a source that predates the McCann case, a student newspaper and a blog). The claim isn't being challenged so three sources are more than adequate. I still dispute the prominence given to the McCann case in adding it to the prose section. All you are stating here is that the McCann case is an example of "missing white woman syndrome" which is what the cited instances section is for. The prose is for discussing the syndrome, and the text you have added to the section does not do that. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The root cause of the dispute is found in your repeated attempts at an indiscriminate removal of all source material linking the McCann case to MWWS. This includes citations of which you were aware the link was made explicitly, as well as sources attached to information outside of the UK section that you refer to. This refutes a third red herring in almost as many posts. You've yet to provide any rationale for your behavior over these past few days, and continue to side-step the question even now. This has not been lost on me. 2A02:1810:108:3300:4A3:A2:95BB:324E (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am finding your comments directed at me insulting. First of all I have not made "repeated" indiscriminate removals over the last few days. Prior to today I selectively removed content once. The content I removed were:

• Sources that either did not reference the McCann case, or did not mention "white woman syndrome". I left in the sources that did both. The sources you restored were again removed by User:SQGibbon before you finally acquiesced. These sources quite rightly are no longer in the article due to not supporting the claim.
• I removed a quote from the Telegraph that you added unsourced. You only added the relevant source after reverting me.
• I removed content you added to the prose section because it did not further discourse on the phenomenon, but left the case in the "cited examples" section, which is where the content belonged. This is also supported by another editor involved in the discussion.

I strongly suggest you stick to the issues at hand rather than making unfounded bad faith accusations against another editor. My edits have largely been supported and I have explained them at length to you. Maybe you should explain your behavior given your blatant disregard for WP:BRD. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The prose you have used in the UK subsection for the McCann case is nothing like the discussion going on in that section. The rest of the section is a discussion about MWWS and only mentions specific cases in support of the overall problem of MWWS. Your prose only mentions that the McCann case is an example of MWWS and does absolutely nothing to further the discussion of MWWS. As it stands right now it does not belong in that section (but is fine in the section of cited examples.) If you were able to expand your prose in such a way as to match the kind of content in that section then maybe it would belong (though if it's just saying the same thing as the other parts then it might still be redundant). SQGibbon (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That will be easily rectifiable, as there are numerous sources which discuss MWWS as a social issue while directly referencing the McCann case as a prominent example of the phenomenon. I don't object to the paragraph being removed until I've completed the rewrite (likely in one of the coming days), so we now have a workable compromise to settle the issue. 2A02:1810:108:3300:4A3:A2:95BB:324E (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Holly Bobo?

Related case? By the way, I opened an "other" section about cases that technically do not involve someone "missing" because the main issue here seems to be disproportionate concern about a white girl having possibly fallen into the clutches an evil-doer, whether or not her location is actually unknown or not.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

the section is a good idea, but what does Holly Bobo have to do with this? Bali88 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is politically correct trash

It reads more like a social commentary of a radical leftist than anything befitting the scholarly detachment of wikipedia. Should be deleted. There are all kinds of double standards on race in media, and it goes both ways. Look at outcry over George Zimmerman in spite of exculpatory evidence that tends to exonerate him, the mob wanted him lynched as a racist before his court date.

I agree this article is politically biased and should be deleted. We should either delete it or rewrite it as a 'missing special person phenomenon'. Or reduce it to mention the phrase's original, but not present it as a real DSM-V 'syndrome'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.78.118 (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Millions of people go missing every year all across the world (mostly in developing countries), and most people dont even raise their eyebrows. When is the last time you've seen a missing man of minority ethnic origin become sensationalized in the media? None. Majority of the time it will be a white female from middle class background, RARELY a white male, even MORE RARELY females or children from minority ethnic background. By denying MWWS and advocating the article to be deleted, you sound like a typical racist caucasian douchebag. Stay away from wikipedia, and Stormfront (a perfect website for your kind) is this way ---> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.248.131.69 (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

White supremecy

I don't think it is relevant whatsoever to the topic. Bali88 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

White supremacy is the belief that the "superiority" of whites should be reflected in their social status. The notion that a white woman is inherently more attractive than a colored woman is functionally equivalent to the notion that a white man is inherently more competent than a colored man. Missing White Woman Syndrome is a manifestation of such right-wing extremist views. It's existence inevitably raises pertinent questions about how far to the right some circles in the media are leaning.

It's worth noting that the number 88, found in your username, is commonly used by white supremacy or white nationalist groups. It's a reference to the eighth letter of the alphabet, H, with 88 being slang for "Heil Hitler". AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a neo-nazi and did not know that 88 had any specific meaning. I chose it because Bali was taken, Bali + other number combinations were taken, and the first one that I hit upon that wasn't taken was 88. lol

While white supremacy and other forms of racism do share some common psychological and sociological causes, I think consensus is that missing white woman syndrome is a bit of a subconscious process. No one is intending to say that rich white women are more valuable than other people. It's an unintentional process. White supremacy is consciously believing that white people are better. To me, it is somewhat misleading to include it and it's only tangentially related because they both deal with racism. I'll let others chime in on this and we'll go with consensus. Bali88 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The following article by Der Spiegel offers some useful background on the symbols that are commonly used by White Supremacy groups. Provided for your convenience.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-truth-about-88-new-book-reveals-secret-meaning-of-neo-nazi-codes-a-770820.html AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to user Betty Logan.

Edits that arbitrarily remove sourced content are disruptive in nature, and will be treated accordingly. A more constructive alternative is to present your issues with the edits I have made on this page, and we will discuss them in due detail. Otherwise, we will proceed straight to 3rd party mediation. Thank you. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with the recent spate of edits you have made as seen here:

• The summary by Eugene Robinson – These are sourced to a blog hosted on wordpress, so i) do not meet WP:RS criteria and ii) they have not been established as significant in any way i.e. is he a published authority on the phenomenon? If so then we should not be relying on his personal blog.
• The addition of Reeva Steenkamp to the cases. This section is specifically for "cited instances" of the phenonmenon. Just because someone has made a comparison between the case and MWWS does not make it an instance of of the phenomenon.
• The addition of "white supremacy" to the "see also" section. Again, this seems like a very POV edit. The link between MWWS and white supremacy is completely unsubstantiated. If there is a valid connection then ideally it should be covered in the article rather just dumped in the "see also" section.

Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just browsed through the history of this article, and its talk page. This apparently is not the first instance of you clashing with the editors of this article in such a manner. In the past, you seem to have also vociferously objected - complete with edit warring - to the inclusion of Madeleine Mccann in the Cited Instances section. In other words, this is the second such incident of you behaving disruptively and antagonistically towards editors who are making good-faith edits to this article which are sourced. (And which ultimately were included in the article by consensus nonetheless.) Would you mind shedding some light on this behavior? AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: On the matter of the points you've raised:

1) Eugene Robinson is a professional and established journalist. If the alleged issue is with the citation itself, I will look for a more mainstream source which contains the same remarks.

2) Steenkamp's case is both noted by professional journalists as a case of missing white woman syndrome, and meets the criteria of MWWS as they have been established by the social sciences. I've yet to see a coherent argument against this content's inclusion.

3) As noted above, the belief that the supposed "superiority" of white people should be reflected in their social status (in this case, a white woman's preferential treatment by the media at the direct expense of colored & minority women) is at the heart of right-wing extremist ideology. I will look for social science sources that establish the link explicitly. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Second addendum: The search for better source material didn't take long. This article, published on an inter-disciplinary online journal by the University of Western Ontario, contains the remarks of Eugene Robinson and also expands on them. The same article also mentions how scholars have directly linked the media's focus on "protecting white womanhood" to the phenomenon of white supremacy, and of right-wing extremism in general (see reference #3 in the linked article for specifics). Enjoy the read, miss Logan. I think you'll find it both instructive and eye-opening.

http://www.neoamericanist.org/paper/flower-smashed-rock

I will look for more mainstream source material that links the Steenkamp case to MWWS as time permits. For now, I am re-adding the Eugene Robinson remarks to the United States section, which are now sourced by an academic citation. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly urge you not to restore any of the content I have removed since you are on the cusp of a WP:3RR violation. I suggest you lay down whatever text you wish to include here first so it can be vetted. Secondly, the sources you provided do not characterize Steenkamp's case as an instance of MWWS; some commentators may have drawn parallels but fall far short from citing this case as an instance of it, probably for two very distinct reasons: no one was actually missing, and these two people were already celebrities so already fell under the media spotlight natrually. Finally, I really don't care what you think about the connection between MWWS and white supremacy, so yes, by all means please establish the link explicitly. Also, will you please restrict your comments to the issues at hand. It is your edits that are currently under scrutiny, not mine. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing under scrutiny in this dispute is the quality of the source material. As it is, I already added this new academic source material to the article before having read your most recent message. If you are true to your past behavior, no doubt you'll take the opportunity to place a temporary ban on me for violation of the three-revert rule. Be that as it may, it changes nothing to the fact that the source material has been presented on this talk page, and is ready to be vetted. Since it is an academic source, I think you'll find the inclusion of this content to be as inevitable as the inclusion of Madeleine Mccann was back then.

After all this is concluded, we will have a conversation about your persistently obstructive behavior on this article. In front of the arbitration committee if necessary. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to stop restoring contested content to the article. The commentary you attribute to Eugene Robinson is not included in the source you provided, nor have you provided sources explicitly linking MWWS to white supremacy. As I stated above, if there is a link between MWWS and white supremacy it should be the covered in the article and suitably sourced, rather than just dumping the term in the "see also" section without any accompanying context for why the link is there. I am not the only editor who has reverted your edits, other editors share my concerns also, so if you restore any more content without agreement here I will seek intervention at ANI. There are a couple of options available to you at this stage: you can either address my concerns, or you can try to persuade impartial editors to support your additions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea: why don't we ask for feedback from others on this? The discrimination wikiproject for example would be a good place to seek feedback. Bali88 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea, I am more than happy to defer to third opinions on this. Betty Logan (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about the recent NPOV edits

I have decided to expand upon my concerns and my reasons for reverting for the benefit of any third parties that may wish to comment. This version of the article and this one were the two versions I reverted.

1. Commentary by Eugene Robinson. In the first version the quote was attributed to a personal blog, which I felt was not an appropriate source for characterizing a social phenomenon. Anyone can write anything in a personal blog, whether it is within their area of expertise or not, so are only reliable for personal opinions. If we are summarizing/defining the phenomenon we should restrict commentary to that which can be found in published secondary sources i.e. newspaper articles, journal articles, books etc. The second verion credited Robinson's quote to a journal article, but the problem here is that the source does not actually include Robinson's comments! Sourcing aside, I am not not sure how much insight Robinson's comments provide: in any kidnapping case, obviously something "precious and delicate" has been "snatched away", but it doesn't actually address the racial element which is at the root of the phenomenon. Robinson continues, "defiled, destroyed by evil forces that lurk in the shadows, just outside the bedroom window", which just seems like lurid writer's prose to me, and adds absolutely nothing to the discourse. Robinson finally gets to the point when he concludes that "It’s whiteness under siege"; that is an interesting angle and would be an interesting addition to the article if he qualified his comments.
2. The addition of Reeva Steenkamp to the case file. As well as being reverted by me, this addition was also reverted by Dodger67 and Bali88. All three of us doubt the relevance of this case. Dodger67 argues that the case isn't "relevant", since the case involved celebrities i.e. the media did not cover the case because Steenkamp was white. Bali88 reverted with the reason that Steenkamp wasn't "missing" i.e. she didn't meet the profile for MWWS. There may be elements of this case that have parallels with MWWS, but we have to avoid WP:Original research. The Huffington Post source comments that the "media's relentless coverage of their case and highlighting of the vulnerability of girls and women in general is a kind of propaganda, doubly effective for its sexism and racism"; it goes on to highlight several high profile cases of missing women, pointing out that these cases are examples of MWWS. The Huffington Post isn't saying that Steenkamp is an instance of MWWS, or indeed even drawing a direct parallel: it is making a generalization about racism and sexism in the media. The other source states that the case raised "concerns around the 'Missing White Woman Syndrome'", but unfortunately provides little context for the exact nature of those concerns i.e. the article doesn't actually state that the Pistorius/Steenkamp case received disproportionate coverage because Steenkamp was white.
3. The addition of White supremacy to the "see also" section. This was also removed by Bali88 on the grounds of not being "relevant", as well as by myself. The relevance of "white supremacy" to this article is not immediately obvious beyond the rather superficial racial element (which is already covered by the link to Racism). Personally I oppose the link even if its relevance can be substantiated: if there is a theme or motivation common to white supremacy and MWWS, or it has been argued that white supremacy is the underlying cause of MWWS then the article would be better served if the link were explained in the body of the article, backed up by suitable sources. The "see also" section should be restricted to links that are self-explanatory.

I hope this better illustrates the problems I specifically have with the edits. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I get the sense that these are not NPOV edits. MWWS is mentioned in the source about Reeva, but her example is an excellent example of hierarchy of death and would make a great example for that page. It would be one thing if MWWS was described in in reliable sources as well as this wikipedia page as applying to non-kidnapping or non-missing persons cases, but there is no explanation as to why Reeva Steenkamp, who was not missing, is an example of MWWS. I added a request for comment on the discrimination wikiproject, so we can get some feedback on that. Bali88 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to vested interests within this article

The three disputants are facing an uphill battle against sociological fact, rather than a struggle with a single editor's conjectures. The academic source cited identifies MWWS as not merely linked to White Supremacy, but as being rooted in it. Quoted from the source material:

1) "the seductive image of white female victimhood as a call to political action or sociocultural change in the United States dates back to at least the Reconstruction South. Other scholars have also posited that countless fairy tales and myths—for example, Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood, and Andromeda—provide a fertile base upon which claims of protecting white womanhood can be constructed."[7] : This sociological account of MWWS has been accentuated by African-American journalist Eugene Robinson, who characterized MWWS as: "“the meta narrative of something seen as precious and delicate being snatched away, defiled, destroyed by evil forces that lurk in the shadows just outside the bedroom window. It's whiteness under siege."[8]

Such assertions, made by mainstream professionals from different fields, are further substantiated by the authors referencing peer-reviewed publications of fellow social scientists who have studied "the historically rooted conceptions of beauty and innocence articulated through film, television, and print media", from which the modern-day Missing White Woman Syndrome phenomenon has sprung.[9] Each of those referenced works discuss White Supremacy and historical right-wing extremist movements by name:

Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina, 1896–1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); Grace Elizabeth Hale, Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890–1940 (New York: Vintage Books, 1998); Stephen Kantrowitz, Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000); Nancy MacLean, Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).[10]

2) Regarding the Reeva Steenkamp case: Missing White Woman Syndrome is formally defined as: "a tendency by the news media to cover the murders and abductions of affluent or middle-class white girls far more than those of boys, poor kids and kids of color.[11] The objection raised by the disputants that Reeva Steenkamp does not warrant recognition as MWWS because her case is not an abduction constitutes a red herring[12], and does not offer a compelling argument that warrants exclusion of this content.

Well-established facts, articulated by social scientists and mainstream journalism alike, are not negotiable nor are they subject to popularity contests among editors, senior or otherwise. There exists no rational basis to exclude the proposed content, and filibusters from partisans with vested interest in obfuscating and maintaining a discriminatory status quo in Western society will prove unable to alter that reality. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusing us of being neo-nazis and racists is not helping your case here and is highly inappropriate. Bali88 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sociological articles such as Missing White Woman Syndrome are often beset by editors who perceive evidence about white privilege as undesirable or threatening. The dynamic is similar to how articles pertaining to evolution continuously find themselves beset by the proponents of creationism. In both cases, the trouble stems from small bands of editors associated with right-wing fringe groups, and similar tactics can be observed in both instances: The harrasment or the Wikihounding of good-faith editors, efforts aimed at undermining article integrity (made manifest in continuous attempts at removing content without providing a rationale), and instigating continual disputes with the intent to filibuster against the inclusion of new content. The latter approach is a growing problem on this article, which has been illustrated by the behavior of user Betty Logan. This is given due attention because it is not an isolated incident.

Substantively, the actions of this particular editor appear to be aimed at gerrymandering evidence so that inconvenient facts about, and representative cases of, MWWS do not make it into the article proper. Previously, a good-faith editor on this article had to wade through such a filibuster to be able to include well-sourced references to the Madeleine Mccann case as a high-profile example of MWWS. Presently, this is occurring again with the Reeva Steenkamp case, and notably with the body of academic research which directly ties MWWS into White Supremacy politics. This behavior is consistent enough in both frequency and theme to be able to speak of the presence of an agenda. This is compounded by the fact that her one vocal supporter in this dispute, namely yourself, boasts a user name which implies connections to the neo-Nazi movement. As the Der Spiegel article I have linked to cogently demonstrates, this is not something being pointed out frivolously.[13] Especially not on an article as this one.

Whereas articles pertaining to evolution have the benefit of a strong community response against these systematic attempts at undermining their content, sociological articles are yet to develop such community support to help safeguard their encyclopedic integrity against the concerted efforts undertaken by these fringe groups. Consequently, such editors enjoy a greater freedom of action on the social science articles than they do in articles pertaining to the natural sciences. That fact is increasingly evident on this talk page, and in response I opted to drag it into the limelight. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You hear, but you don't listen. In the context of MWWS, your source argues that white female "victimhood" dates back to the Reconstruction South. That falls some way short of an explicit link between MWWS and white supremacy. It is you who is joining up the dots. Secondly, even if the link can be explicitly established it still does not belong in the "see also" section since the connection is not self-evident i.e. the connection between the ideology and the phenomenon should be explicitly qualified in the body of the article. On the subject of Steenkamp, you are again making assumptions about the nature of the media coverage. The two editors who reverted you (prior to me) gave you perfectly valid explanations for why it is not appropropriate to include the case in the missing women section: i) there was disproportionate media coverage because it involved celebrities—even if Steenkamp were not white the coverage would likely have still been disproportionate; ii) Steenkamp was never actually missing. None of the sources you provided argued that the case received disproportionate coverage due to Steenkamp's ethnicity. I have provided you with full and detailed explanations as to the problems with your edits, but you simply refuse to address any of them. Bali88 has requested input at WP:DISCRIMINATION, so I suggest we wait to see what the third party commenters have to say. If they support your edits then fair enough, I will step aside. Betty Logan (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A case of projection. Your comments make it clear that you have, at best, glanced over the sources I've provided rather than having made an effort to internalize them. This is particularly so with regards to the Steenkamp issue, where your remarks give me cause to wonder whether you have reviewed the source material at all. The allegation of original synthesis on my part is baseless; the referenced works each mention White Supremacy by name, and the authors of the journal labor to explain in detail how MWWS arose from its related movements.

Indeed, at the heart of the issue lies the fact that you are not so much in a dispute with me as you are at odds with the established scientists and mainstream journalists whose work and insights the proposed content is referencing. Science does not stop being science when it reveals facts which are responsible for pulling you out of your comfort zone. This is why your position is untenable. And more importantly, why your continuous attempts at obstructing the inclusion of this content raise a number of questions.

Your status as a senior editor does not impress me given your conduct on this article, past and present. It merely lends you a benefit of the doubt that many would have already lost. I may well be wrong about my suspicions as to why you behave on this article the way you do. But at this time, I've very little reason to assume this is the case. My position reflects that. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thus far you do not have consensus for these changes. If in the future there is consensus, we can make those changes. Please do not imply that other editors have ulterior motives or are the members of groups you disagree with, particularly hate groups. Instead discuss the relevancy and appropriateness of the changes themselves. Bali88 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Below is a point-by-point refutation of the objections raised to Reeva Steenkamp being included in the Cited Instances section:

1) "Steenkamp's case isn't relevant because the disproportionate coverage she received is a consequence of her celebrity status."

South-African journalists who reported on the Pistorius trial disagree: "Concerns around the “Missing White Woman Syndrome” were raised, when once again; the death of Steenkamp was juxtaposed with the death, under almost similar circumstances, of a black woman – Zanele Khumalo. Her murder in 2011 failed to hog the headlines until later on in her murder trial and in fact, the proceedings went on next door to the Pistorius trial, without much attention drawn to it. Reference was also made to similar circumstances in the deaths of Leigh Matthews and Betty Ketane, whose coverage in the media was unequal."[14]

2) "Steenkamp's case wasn't an abduction nor was she missing, and therefore doesn't qualify as MWWS."

A red herring: Mainstream journalists & sociologists define MWWS as: "a tendency by the news media to cover the murders and abductions of affluent or middle-class white girls far more than those of boys, poor kids and kids of color.[15] The source unequivocally states that MWWS includes cases of murder. This also makes it clear that the article's introduction needs to be updated to include murder cases.

3) "None of the sources you provided argued that the case received disproportionate coverage due to Steenkamp's ethnicity."

Demonstrably false: Quoted once more from South-African media outlets: "the death of Steenkamp was juxtaposed with the death, under almost similar circumstances, of a black woman – Zanele Khumalo. Reference was also made to similar circumstances in the deaths of Leigh Matthews and Betty Ketane, whose coverage in the media was unequal."[16] South-African journalists link Reeva Steenkamp to Missing White Woman Syndrome. They discuss the juxtaposition of the Steenkamp, Khumalo, Matthews and Ketana cases, which were all identical save for the ethnicity of the victims. And they unambiguously assert that Steenkamp receiving this disproportionate media coverage represents unequal treatment.

Betty Logan and yourself are being confronted with verifiable facts articulated by mainstream journalists, as well as by definitions laid down by the social sciences. You do not contend with idle conjecture or point of view edits. The position that Steenkamp's case does not warrant inclusion is without merit. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added what I think is a reasonable compromise. Although I think these particular journalists are misusing the term and Steenkamp is a very poor example of MWWS, she has been cited by multiple sources as being a case that is related to the topic. You need to add appropriate sources. Bali88 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections to the addition of a link to "white privilege" but I still oppose the addition of the Steenkamp case: the case being juxtaposed against that of a similar case involving a black woman does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that MWWP was the cause for the disparity. None of the sources put forward an argument that race rather than celebrity was the reason for disporportionate media coverage. If ACOTC's still insists on the incusion of the case he has the option of filiing an RFC and asking the community to decide. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Steenkamp seems to be a case of hierarchy of death, which is mentioned in the article: two sides of the same coin. Rothorpe (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan does have a point with the celebrity factor. I'm certain there are a million hot blondes in South Africa who have been murdered, Steenkamp is the first I've heard of. I know Pistorious is the reason for the fame. He was famous in America way before this even happened. Bali88 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Rothorpe has nailed it really, it's definitely a "hierarchy of death" example since the media coverage was incredibly disproportionate, but celebrity is the "hierarchical" factor here. It has arguably been the most heavily reported murder trial since Amanda Knox, and how many white women have been murdered by their husbands/boyfriends since then? A murder trial involving celebrities is always going to attract more media attention than one that doesn't. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated personal views do not negate the relevance of mainstream journalists and academic researchers; these secondary sources are explicitly regarded as the most reliable source material available regarding verifiability by Wikipedia policy. No arguments to date merit their exclusion from the article, and after two weeks it is safe to say no such argumentation will be forthcoming. To be dismissive of secondary source material or to make cynical requests for "better" sources when confronted with it is not consistent with the aim of resolving this dispute. It is consistent with the goal of dictating the terms of its outcome, and attempting to exclude the source material itself, rather than this editor's phrasing of it. This can be seen as tantamount to censorship of content relevant to the topic but deemed to be objectionable. Finding content personally objectionable is not sufficient grounds for its exclusion.

The proposed alternative of "hierarchy of death" does not seem to be supported by secondary sources and its inclusion therefore is original research.

This speaks to the root cause of the dispute: Positions for which no reliable, published sources are being offered find consensus. Content supported by the most reliable source material available is being opposed well beyond reasonable doubt and is categorically excluded by these editors. The argumentation meant to validate the irregular status quo appears to shift whimsically itself: No further mention is made of academic research that links white supremacy movements to MWWS[17], nor is further mention made of journalist Eugene Robinson's article[18]. Most concerning however is the removal of these two academic publications[19][20] from the Further Reading section of the article, which have no bearing on the dispute. The removal of these publications has yet to be discussed by the editors responsible, and they have yet to offer a rationale for the arbitrary deletion of this relevant content. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Conclusions

Each of the objections raised have been duly refuted through the referencing of secondary source material. The point of contention seems not to have been with this editor, but with the journalists & social researchers who have articulated analyses & facts that are apparently deemed personally objectionable by some. This has become evident because of the following reasons:

1) Confronted with these secondary sources, one of the two disputants, Bali88, sought the beginnings of a compromise by examining ways of incorporating at least parts of the proposed content into the article, with this taking the first steps towards resolution of the dispute. As he did so, his edits on the article were promptly reverted by Betty Logan, preventing resolution once more.

2) With over two weeks of time having elapsed, but a single 3rd party editor offered an outside opinion. This lone commentator did not issue a verdict on the dispute. He merely stated he considers "hierarchy of death" a worthwhile inclusion to the article's See Also section. This conspicuous lack of broad community consensus is the logical consequence of the disputants' untenable position.

3) The case for excluding the proposed content is rooted in what Wikipedia policy defines as censorship: The intent to obstruct the inclusion of content which is proved relevant to the topic but personally found to be objectionable by some. Wikipedia guidelines on this matter are unambiguous: Finding content to be objectionable is not sufficient grounds to warrant exclusion.

At this juncture, it's become self-evident that the objections raised against the proposed content are categorical, and therefore are not open to reconsideration, regardless of how salient the evidence or how compelling the argumentation is. This is evinced by the fact that every objection refuted through the referencing of secondary source material has, repeatedly, been rephrased and re-posted under a different wording. These practices have extensively prolonged the dispute, and successfully hindered all progress towards its resolution.

Little of what has transpired here reflects well on Wikipedia, as a whole. It speaks to the presence of a conflict of interest on this article which has become well-entrenched. I will not insist on optimal outcomes: The fact that this debacle is a matter of public record suffices. Few future editors will be left with any illusion about how the encyclopedic integrity of this sociological article has been compromised by vested interests, which are subjected neither to scrutiny nor to penalty. AChildOfTwoCultures (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to take this to conflict resolution if you feel like this needs future discussion. Bali88 (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2014 (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)

This article's critics alternately deny MWWS even exists vs argue reason after reason why MWW should merit disproportionate media coverage, thereby confirming the very phenomena at issue. Wow, the lack of critical thinking in between is appalling. All this article is about is disproportionate coverage. That the profile of all violent crime victims is different from the profiles generating the most media attention. Even though Wiki's primary inclusion standard is verifiability, not truth, in this case sociologists have in fact documented the statistical significance of coverage disparity; check Google scholar for citations. Wikipedia doesn't care if the reasons for disparity are legitimate or not. After verifiability, Wiki's only concern is notability. After media analyst Gwen Ifel coined the term MWWS, it joined media watchers' lexicon, meeting notability thresholds. As in many articles on race, the range of objections to this article mainly add up to :I Don't Like It," which is what blogs are for, not this Project. In reading this Talk page, I realize, no wonder the ideological Right indicts liberal arts education as elitist; more than any one thing, it teaches how to critically think outside the box of personal experience. This page is replete with examples of faulty reasoning for lack of that skill, and it's really, really concerning. signed, Agent Orange Tabby (forgot my password). 100.36.154.131 (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Any Evidence of Disproportionateness?

As of today's date the article merely assumes that media coverage of abductions is disproportionate in comparison with the abductions that actually occur. Maybe white women are in fact abducted more often than other groups. In that case the greater media attention given to such cases would arguably not be disproportionate at all. If anyone could offer some citations to studies that analyze this issue one way or another, it would greatly improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.116.190 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's been extensively documented. See here (a paper showing that the disappearance of a white woman gets twenty-seven times the coverage of an aboriginal woman, among other conclusions). See also here, among others. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There are explanations that exclude racism being one. 1. Aboriginal women live in the countryside and the bias is towards city women who are more often white. Cities is also where most journalists live. 2. There are many more white women than aboriginal women. If newspaper editors have the choice to promote a story about a white woman to a 98% white audience, or of a minority woman to a 2% minority audience, which will sell more newspapers? 3. Being 'white' is irrelevant. For example, in Nigeria, a country of 150 million majority blacks, the story of Natalee Holloway was never published mainstream. It seems that newspapers tailor to majority audiences, which is not the same as racist or white-biased. If minorities want their stories published - start a minority newspaper! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.78.118 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning just doesn't hold statistical water. TWENTY SEVEN TIMES the coverage. But if you'd actually read the sources cited in answer to your first question, youd already know that all the "reasons" in your second are specious. Critic after critic here first denies to the hills that MWWS even exists, only to about face before the evidence and explain why it just feels so incredibly justified paying white women more attention. I'm a white woman with an African-American daughter, and I cringed reading one critic's rationale (above), "But since the media's mainly white, it's natural they're more interested in victims who could be their sister/daughter!" Then go one to wonder, where's the "racism" in that?! With such uncritically myopic tribal attitudes prevalent within & across communities, no wonder the world can't seem to cooperate for shit. The inability to empathize with suffering across ethnicities, castes & nationalities starts in our own backyards, destines us for perpetual internecine conflict & warfare, and it dooms us all. Wake up, people; on a planet this small, we ALL could be each others' family . 100.36.154.131 (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Offensive

Is this article really necessary? It seems kind of offensive towards kidnapping victims, especially the ones that the article singles out to serve as examples of "missing white woman syndrome". --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree w/ your point regarding specific examples. Also not a fan of the way the article presents this theory as fact Mr. Nessbit 05:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Nessbit (talk • contribs)

Agree with the above two people. Half the women listed here as examples I have never heard mentioned in the media. I guess if the classic example of Lacy Peterson was included then the article would have to explain why Hispanics in this list of white women. Then you have to explain why non-upper-middle class people are in this list, too. That's the problem with creating an article on a catch phrase instead of facts or at least a scientific theory. It ends up being lot of opinion that isn't even consistent. --MarsRover (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And Polly Klaas was a child, not a "woman". This article is extremely ambiguous, and reads like a poorly-sourced op-ed piece. I don't believe it should exist on WP.--Chimino (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, and see, I think the well-documented & validated phenomena the article describes is offensive to all the missing non-white women, their mothers, children, fathers, brothers, sisters & communities whose heartbreak never made a headline for lack of column space or airtime that was disproportionately spent on white female violent crime victims. If anything, I think the loved ones of victims whose cases DID generatw extensive coverage would be the first to empathize with my offense. They know better than anyone how much MORE awful it would be to loose a loved one, only for no one else to apparently care. 100.36.154.131 (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle between media giants

The lede says "The actual phrase (Missing white woman syndrome) comes from Sheri Parks, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, who used the term in a 2006 interview with CNN to describe this observed media trend.[1][3]"

The WWS seems to have come to prominence through CNN running criticism of FOX ect who had trounced them in the ratings by running the Natalee Holloway story. Anderson Cooper spoke about this. If you read the source, Cooper explicitly says (see the ref that these are his are his employer's competitors. "COOPER: every night, our cable competitors devote hours and hours to this story, even though, sadly, nothing new is happening. We decided to start tracking their coverage, because to be honest, it's getting downright ridiculous. Here's what the other guys were reporting just last night." They were playing hardball with GRETA VAN SUSTEREN. Who was getting huge ratings for her coverage of Natalee's disappearance. So an academic got given a platform by CNN to accuse their rivals of discreditable behaviour which just happened to be winning the big ratings. Perhaps some perspective on why this issue became an actual thing would improve the article. Overagainst (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

WHY the issue first generated media attention is secondary to the issue's verifiability as a phenomena. CNN's motives for publicizing a concept sociologists have long acknowledged could be just as unsavory as Fox's in practicing it. None of that detracts from the verifiability, legitimacy and ultimate notability of MWWS 10 years later. In fact, his ratings boosts suggests Cooper correctly gauged a growing group of viewers disaffected by Fox's wall to wall Holloway coverage, for whom he crafted a more newsworthy meta-analysis. That's just good business & good journalism, to which the enduring notability of MWWS is a testament. 100.36.154.131 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2015 (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)

It is absolute racism of the most disgusting type: aimed at victims of crime. All the examples are from places where white people are the majority of the media, the govornment and the public figures. It is only natural that someone with whom they identify as a potential daughter/sister figure will get more attention. Has this "syndrome" been observed in African or Asian countries? Has any real scientific analysis been done to prove anything about this? This is yet another example of the "If its like that in America it must be true" syndrome.

This comment is among the sorriest, most myopic & uncritically conceived I've ever read on Wili Talk pages. So when media, government & public figures are white, it makes sense they should only concern themselves with stories that affect white people? You know, because they look like 'family'? And what's your method for determining how 'white' the 'places' MWW come from are, and the 'whiteness' of the involved media, government & public figures, when by DEFINITION MWWS generates national & international coverage? Sort of like certain racial supremacists, you seem to posses a very sensitive gift for detecting 'whiteness' and 'non-whiteness.' How does that gift work?

It's almost as if critics of this article have so internalized the disproportionate interest in MWW that's at at the heart of MWWS, when challenged their immediate assumption is that 'whiteness' itself is under attack, and they just can't conceive an alternative rationale. You essentially argue FOR MWWS, just because it seems to right & so natural to YOU. Maybe you don't really care, but pause for a moment and consider how getting TWENTY SEVEN TIMES less coverage feels to the loved ones of non-white violent crime victims in the US, the Americas, Canada, the UK & Australia? Can you do that? Or must you keep clinging to your racist argument that it SHOULD be that way? 100.36.154.131 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SSCI 2831U

I'm going to expand the section on Canada - it's very small and doesn't include the recent movement in 2014 and 2015 about the "grave violation of Aboriginal Women's rights" and the call to action demanding the Federal Government to create an inquiry into missing and murdered women. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has said that Canada has made this claim. ChipsAndChopsticks2 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Source problems

"Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase used 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"

The source given for this is a blog, more specifically Anderson Cooper 360 blog, I don't think that can be considered a reliable source. I suggest this part either be better sourced or deleted. link

"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." A WaPo op-ed is used as a source for this part. I don't think that can be considered a reliable source. I suggest it either be fixed or deleted. link

"Although the term was coined to describe disproportionate coverage of missing person cases, it is sometimes used to describe the disparity in news coverage of other violent crimes. The concept is similar to hierarchy of death, in which certain types of deaths garner more news coverage than others. Missing white woman syndrome has led to a number of tough on crime measures named for white women who went missing and were subsequently found harmed."

This entire part is unsourced. I suggest it either be sourced or deleted.

All of the following use the same Anderson Cooper 360 blog entry as above as their source. I suggest this be fixed, or these portions be deleted. The reliance this article places on a single Anderson Cooper 360 blog entry also calls into question the notability of this article. "Laci Peterson (December 24, 2002) – A 27-year-old pregnant woman murdered by her husband." "Lori Hacking (July 19, 2004) – A 27-year-old woman murdered by her husband." "Natalee Holloway (May 30, 2005) – An 18-year-old high school senior who disappeared in Aruba and remains missing. She was declared legally dead on January 12, 2012." Putanotherway (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify for this discussion that blogs run by news organizations written by their journalists are considered reliable sources per WP:NEWSBLOG. Bali88 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lacking content

This article only really has 2 sections, "Media coverage" and "Cited instances". The "Media coverage" section is media coverage of media coverage, which is of questionable importance to the article, and questionable notability. The "Cited instances" would better be named, "Cited as instances" or "Cases cited as instances", since there's no consensus of what is and isn't an instance of "missing white woman syndrome". Also, the cases themselves could NOT be instances of "missing white woman syndrome" since the syndrome isn't about missing women, but the media coverage of the missing women. So the cases themselves shouldn't be listed under "cited as instances", instead information about the media coverage should be listed. Both sections should probably be fixed or deleted. Due to the lack of content, and other problems with this article I suggest it be nominated for deletion.Putanotherway (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that you can improve the article, by all means do so, but I suggest looking at the last time this article was nominated for deletion. It ended in a snowball keep. Do you really think it will end any differently the second time around? Bali88 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Poorly worded, not sourced

"The following missing person cases have been cited as instances of missing white woman syndrome; researchers and journalists found that these instances garnered a disproportionate level of media coverage relative to contemporary cases involving missing girls/women of non-white ethnicities, and missing males of all ethnicities."

This part is poorly worded, and isn't sourced. It's comparing specific cases to unlisted, non-specific cases that fall into a general category. Unless this can be quoted from a source, then it seems like a flawed statement created just for this wiki page. I suggest this entire part "researchers and journalists found that these instances garnered a disproportionate level of media coverage relative to contemporary cases involving missing girls/women of non-white ethnicities, and missing males of all ethnicities." be deleted.Putanotherway (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. The "substance" of the section is the cited examples, but the introduction is basically WP:SYNTHESIS drawing connections from isolated and independent news stories. Betty Logan (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lacking specificity

"Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase used by social scientists" Used by who exactly? Is this a phrase accepted by some society of social scientists? Is it used in social science texts? Is it just used by a handful of social scientists whom we could name?

"Sociologists define the media phenomenon" Who exactly?

"The PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill is said to be" Said by whom? Putanotherway (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lead is poorly written, but let's not forget this isn't a GA-rated article. It's currently rated "Start" class which indicates it is the early stages of development. As for the first quote the answer can be found in the citation it is attributed to: "That was the phrase invoked by Sheri Parks, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, during our interview yesterday." As for the next two sentences, these are classic cases of WP:EDITORIALIZING and can probably be addressed by simply altering the wording. I suggest you follow WP:BEBOLD in clear cases of editorializing, since changing the wording is not the same as adding/removing content which generally requires a bit more compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lack of peer-reviewed research

"One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.[8]

Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Articles about fringe theories sourced solely from a single primary source (even when it is peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds. Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources."

This article has a definite lack of peer-reviewed research to back up "missing white woman syndrome" as a notable theory. Putanotherway (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize with this view and would flat out agree if it were documenting a purely sociological phenomenon; however, the article is mainly dealing with media bias and disproportionate coverage so there is no escaping industry reflection and commentary on the issue. It's really an article about the media that is mostly dependent on media sources so it needs to be presented in those terms really, rather than social science this and social scientists that. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll further clarify that it's not necessary that scientists agree that MWWS exists. It's not necessary that scientists look into the topic at all. What's important is that the topic be covered in the media, which it most definitely is. There may be an argument that the article be reworded or restructured depending on how the topic is being presented, but the fact that a topic is not accepted or discussed thoroughly within the scientific community is not grounds for deletion for not being notable. Bali88 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A psychology researchers view on this (me)

I'm currently doing my PhD in social psychology (2 years in) and live in a country where critical thinking is part of the education from kindergarten to your PhD (generally takes longer to become a PhD in my country than others as well). I'm also a certified therapist. Not that I actually think the "missing white woman syndrome" is even remotely semantically meaningful (it just sounds like dumb journalistic marketing considering what a syndrome actually is), I searched a huge database of scientific papers with papers from universities and scientific journals (even searched a section for non-peer reviewed papers) just to be sure this isn't an academic "thing". I found nothing.

It should be known that journalists aren't scientists. They write whatever they can sell, pretty much. This is a very known phenomenon taught in Scandinavian schools, but not as much in the US I suspect (hence possible the huge confusion about what's science/facts and what are just selling points for Fox News and CNN). I've corrected the article now and changed "social scientists" to "media", which makes the sentence more objectively correct and more truthful.

The term "Missing white woman syndrome" is all about media and it's semantically meaningless if we're talking about a group phenomenon. When it comes to actual facts (which there are no sources of in this article) about the described phenomenon here, they are a bit off-topic. For example, discrimination has basically nothing to do with it directly since discrimination is something else. It's not discrimination for a news paper to less frequency pick up and write about missing white males or young black females. In social psychology, we discuss those phenomenons in other more semantically related terms.

As for "Sociologists define the media phenomenon as the undue focus on upper-middle-class white women who disappear .." I cannot help you , since we don't define this media phenomenon as that. We are not media analysers, media can write whatever for whatever reasons (economical, juridical, political, stakeholders and so forth). We study social phenomenons and how people behave (in a broader sense, that is, internally as well) in relation to (or absence of) other people and the environment (again, in broader senses since humans can communicate indirectly and the environment even could be a bacteria infection).

There are however studies done within my field about journalism. There are plenty of studies done about racism as well. But nothing in this article references to actual science or even stays on a clear red line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.33.120 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

USA-Centric?

Where in the world except in the USA "is" this a phenomenon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.33.120 (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)