Talk:Missing white woman syndrome

Why Does this article even exist?

Doesn't anyone find it a little messed up to include examples under an article like this? Insinuating that the only reason anyone even cared about these women and their well being is because of the color of their skin? Why are we taking the opinions of journalists at face value, instead of actually comparing the number of articles published about a case at the time with other ongoing cases? It seems unfair that any woman could end up being included as an "example" just because some reporter said so on the basis of their own thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:6942:BC00:999E:3B1A:DACB:90D4 (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes the examples here are bizarrely egregious. How someone could think the murder of a 17 year old by the Crown Prince of Austria could be an example of “missing white woman syndrome” is beyond me Jjollyy (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Nicola Bulley

JuliaDrydon has repeatedly added the Nicola Bulley case to the list of examples, despite me pointing out on several occasions the source does not corroborate the claim. The source DOES NOT cite this case as an exponent of "missing white woman syndrome", nor does it mention her sex and ethnicity in the context of disproportionate media coverage. A news story simply reporting on the disappearance itself is not adequate sourcing for adding to this case to the page. It is the editor who is making the association with MWWS, not the source. I am going to remove this case one more time and I don't expect it to be added back without sources that explicitly cites the phenomenon. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the information twice. I certainly did NOT add or revert anything new three times. Another editor added the information initially, albeit without a source and with incorrect formatting for the table. See the history. JuliaDrydon (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You reverted three times: [1], [2] and [3]. On each occasion you ignored the preceding edit summary, and on the final occasion you did so after deleting the warning I had left on your talk page. I strongly suggest you leave this article alone from now on, unless you can provide a cast-iron source that explicitly draws a connection between this case and missing white woman syndrome. Betty Logan (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Wrong! I only added the same edit again twice, which is permitted, not three times, only you did this, which is not allowed. My personal position remains entirely neutral on this. As mentioned before, if you check the history, you will see that I did NOT initially add the information. I merely added it again, with different formatting and with a source. I personally had already decided not to add it again. Your threats though, are totally irrelevant to this and wildly out of place. JuliaDrydon (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW her case fits the bill of Missing White Woman Syndrome, especially with the excessive level of media coverage that she's gotten. Thing is while there are a lot of people describing her case as MWWS, there's not been much in the way of media articles referencing specifically MWWS. There's a Daily Express arcticle [4] that mentions it, and a magazine article behind a paywall [5] but that's all there is really. 31.125.9.70 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked JuliaDrydon as a CU-confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Examples

I think the examples section is a bit excessive and appears to be a directory. As mentioned by other editors, it also appears to contain some original research. To trim these down, I think we should remove all listed examples of people who do not have examples. What do you think? —Panamitsu (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would bin the counterexamples section, it is tangential to the topic i.e. missing white women which have attracted disproportionate media attention. The list of people who haven't is endless. Any original research should be tagged or removed as a matter of course. Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)