Talk:Disappearance of Lauren Spierer

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Indiana This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

If the vandalism continues, is there a way to require a registered account to edit the page? It's kind of a big case, not surprising that it attracts vandals. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's called semi-protection and excludes non-registered users and new (non-(auto)confirmed) users from editing the page. See

Request for page protection, which is where you'd request such protection. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you think this page qualifies? I'm fairly new here and I don't know how the whole thing works. Bali88 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, seems to constantly be the same IP-address and it looks like it has calmed down for now, so right now, probably not. Should they return, you're probably better off reporting them at

AIV (they have already had a final warning), but should they be blocked and "suddenly" a new IP is back to do the same, especially if such happens more than once, or should multiple different IPs and/or non-confirmed accounts start vandalizing the page, then it would probably qualify. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I have removed the section that refers to this case as a case of Missing White Woman Syndrome, especially in comparison to Crystal Grubb. Grubb was white so citing the differences in coverage as an example of MWWS makes no sense. Perhaps Missing Rich, Attractive Woman Syndrome in the case of Spierer. But not white. Clearly neither gender nor race was an issue in the disparity of coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the missing white woman sydrome article, it says "Missing white woman syndrome is a phrase coined by social scientists to describe the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases that involve young, white, upper-middle class women or girls.[1] Sociologists define the media phenomenon as the undue focus on upper-middle class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases concerning missing women of other ethnicities and social classes, or with missing males of all social classes and ethnicities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I haven't read all the pages involving disappearances and missing persons. I'd be lying to you if I'd say I had, however, I've read enough of them to question this ones' content: why here on this page and not others, or, more importantly, why at all? 2Pac4Lyfe (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses what is reported in reliable sources, missing while women syndrome has been reported by several sources which are cited here using the Spierer case as a specific example.Greyjoy ^talk 05:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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