Talk:Murder of Sherri Rasmussen

Lead image

The topic is about the murder, Daniel, not the person herself. It helps readers identify the person but not the murder. I added the corpse image at Death of Alan Kurdi and then added the pre-death image of the victim into the background. There must be an image of her corpse where the police or someone else found her. Well, suicide of Tyler Clementi uses the infobox at the top, but I wonder whether the infobox should be pushed down or changed. Anyway, I am uncertain whether the current lead image is appropriate as lead image per WP:LEADIMAGE. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I just don't see any wording in the linked section that suggests we must use a picture related to the event rather than one of the decedent. I agree that a crime scene pic would be most apropos, but very rarely are those free (to be fair, most pictures of dead or missing persons that we use aren't, either), outside of those taken by U.S. federal agencies, and they're harder to find as they are not always made public for perfectly obvious reasons.

In fact, on that note, I actually believe LEADIMAGE would argue against using graphic corpse or crime-scene pics, even if available: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred." IMO a picture of the victim is an accurate representation of the topic because it shows the life lost.

In any event, given the vast amount of articles we have about deaths, whether homicides or not, this interpretation of policy should be discussed at a level higher than individual articles' talk pages before being applied. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Would exceptions apply per WP:GUIDES, Mr. Case (or Daniel if you want me to)? George Ho (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: Daniel is fine; perhaps we will get to meet in person someday. I suppose if you want to treat it that way (as an exception to a guideline) it's fine, although I maintain there's no exception needed because I don't read the guideline that broadly. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record (how do you call it?), Daniel, the pre-death image of Alan Kurdi was nominated for deletion because the corpse image is already used. Fortunately, the image is kept, but the corpse image is a better lead image despite its disturbing nature. Recently, I changed the infobox of "suicide of Tyler Clementi" to {{infobox event}} and pushed the image down to Background. George Ho (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: In the case of the Kurdi image, it is important to remember that his death became a worldwide event in no small reason because of a photograph of his corpse on the beach. The shocking image is part and parcel of notability there.

I would make that exception for other cases of people photographed after their deaths where their death was what was notable and we do not have articles on them as individuals (i.e., Jeffrey Miller and the other victims of the Kent State shootings, where that iconic photograph of a distraught Mary Ann Vecchio over his corpse is the lead image). Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: But see Nguyễn Văn Lém. However, in that case, I'd bet the iconic photograph of his death is the only one anyone can find. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't pinged you yet because you will likely read my response here. I started an RM discussion about the naming of the Nguyen page. Before that, I was going to mention that, before Trayvon Martin was converted to an article in 18 September 2013, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page did not use either Trayvon or Zimmerman image as lead image. Ooh, look: a pre-death image of Eric Garner (which I uploaded) was pushed down from the lead image. Wanna ask that person why? George Ho (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: This sort of change would affect a lot of articles, actually, and I think we are better off opening this up on the MOS:IMAGE talk page, where we can get some sort of stronger consensus as to whether a lead image of the decedent while alive would be "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic" as well as "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see" in articles about those deaths (I maintain that it would be).

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of these pictures of these people are not free images; instead they are third-party copyrighted and thus come under our fair use policies. The contextual requirements of Fair use criterion 8 have long been interpreted to require that any fair-use image in an article have not only a rationale on its image page, but sourced commentary on that image in the article itself, as close as possible to the image in the text. Take it from one of the ... oh, about 40 or so people on Wikipedia who really understand that policy and how it is implemented: it is much easier to justify a fair-use image in an article infobox, especially of a dead person for whom it is unlikely that new images will be able to be created, than it is when it's allowed to float freely in the article. As it is, the Eric Garner picture could be deleted as an insufficiently-justified non-free image, for instance. Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would the Garner image be deleted, while the pre-death Kurdi image was decided to be kept for now? George Ho (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Because, I think, Deryck was being generous. The original nominator was coldly correct about the image of the living boy not adding anything encyclopedic to the article. And it doesn't seem to me like there was really a lot of discussion. Had I been part of it, I would have voted regretful delete. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-nominate it if you want. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, central discussion is a little too soon. No proof yet that case-by-case method is inadequate. Maybe nominate another pre-death image of a victim, and see the results. Kurdi's case is not sufficient enough for central discussion. You can nominate either Garner image or Parker and Ward image for deletion at FFD, so you might prove that case-by-case is not adequate any longer. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just hate doing things that way.

BTW, I would point out that, analogously, for articles about, say, transportation accidents where a decent free photograph of the accident or aftermath is not available, we have run pictures of the planes or trains involved if we had them (cf. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which, OK, no one knows what happened so we're not going to have a picture, but also consider 2014 Falcon 50 Vnukovo ground collision, an already-forgotten accident where we have a picture of one of the planes involved. To me that's the equivalent of having the picture of the murder victim while they were alive. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: And just to take an example from a rail accident earlier this very year: Bad Aibling rail accident, which has a picture of one of the trains involved from shortly beforehand. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass accidental deaths and one person's death are... not the same. How do they compare? Also, even when you hate the case-by-case, central discussion is not easy either. If images are a discussion's central issue, I don't think many would care much. Look at this discussion. Issue was raised, but nothing was resolved. Even I tried raising the issue about insufficient participation at WT:FFD without luck. What's going on with many people? George Ho (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Mass accidental deaths and one person's death are... not the same. How do they compare?" Well, they both involve death, for one thing. More seriously, I see lots of similarities—as I said, free pictures more directly related to the incident may very well not be available, and a picture of the decedent while alive or the vehicle before it was wrecked are easily the next best thing that still falls within the very vague criteria of LEADIMAGE.

No, no discussion method will ever always resolve the issue. But ... with case-by-case it often appears that someone has been doing it stealthily, creating facts on the ground so that any participants in the inevitable discussion that does start when someone gets upset about the changes are aware that a consensus that the change underway is against policy means it will have to be reverted in every article it's been applied to and thus an awful lot of work will have to be done, so people find reasons to approve said change even if it's not really supported by policy. Basically, it looks manipulative to people. Daniel Case (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A person's death is treated as a huge sensation nowadays... or it has been. One death would make a difference. Mass deaths also make a huge difference. Speaking of case-by-case, I link a very tiny essay for you. You can expand the essay. Also, off-topic, but RMs at Talk:Chan Chi-chuen show an example of a bad case-by-case scenario. Also, look at a discussion about a non-free pre-death image of a person (or two); it can be a good example or bad example of case-by-case scenario. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Murder of Sherri Rasmussen and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

MOS:LEADIMAGE doesn't really have anything to say about this article, as no one is suggesting showing a corpse as the lead image. Looking at a variety of other articles may not be very helpful, as it doesn't help answer the question of what's best for this article. In my opinion, the lead image as used in this version is perfectly fine, and in a lot of ways is better than having no lead image at all. Bradv 20:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

There is a Law and Order SVU episode based on these events - Secrets Exhumed. Is that an appropriate section to add? I am not familiar with these types of pages. -Lciaccio (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Lciaccio (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lciaccio: If you can find a reliable, independent third-party source saying this, yes (Funny that ... most people noticed the similarities to Cold Case, but I've never found anyone who I can cite saying that) Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So far all I have seen is a Law and Order wiki, not a reliable source. I had searched for it because I noticed the similarities when reading about the case. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This case has turned up just now on HLN in an episode of Beyond Reasonable Doubt. There is reference to "If I can't have John, no one else will." and now I got confused because I hear something like "no one else can have ___" but the person killed was not ___ but ___'s current significant other.

It seems that when Lazarus said that, she was determined to kill Sherri and move back in on John, as indeed she did, until (it seems) she naturally grew out of that relationship and moved on. Whoever said people that lovesick that they would kill someone think logically? Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Singular/plural?

"Initial investigation" section has "It appeared that the perpetrator had been in the process of taking electronic equipment when Rasmussen came upon them". Maybe say "when encountered by Rasmussen"? Remember that a woman (and that would be Stephanie Lazarus, police woman) would be convicted of murder in this case. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At the time of that investigation, the killer's gender was not known, much less their identity, and it was indeed seen as entirely possible that more than one person were involved. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So, could we use "perpetrator(s)" to allow for more than one? We could still use "when encountered by Rasmussen". Carlm0404 (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Name

I am curious ... does anyone know why she is known by the name of Sherri Rasmussen ... and not Sherri Ruetten? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

All the coverage used it. She might have chosen to continue going by her maiden name while she was alive. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree ... all the coverage indeed used it. I guess you are correct ... even after marriage, she went by her maiden name, it seems. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this w/r to the late 1990s: "Among the evidence seen as likely to do so was that collected from the Rasmussens' residence". Why the plural of "Rasmussen"? If we are referring to the home of Sherri Rasmussen and her husband, and Sherri was using maiden name, only one Rasmussen would have been living there. Carlm0404 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point. I did not notice that. I will reword it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I just changed it from ... the Rasmussens' residence ... to ... the Rasmussen residence. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources

A large part of this article is sourced to someone's lawsuit pleadings and a court opinion, neither of which is a reliable source (other than for their own content, and even then with great caution and very sparingly). This in turn is why it's so long and overdetailed: if it limited itself to details secondary sources found worth reporting, it would be more focused and readable. EEng 15:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

As it happens ... there is now a book about the case, The Lazarus Files, which I am in the process of reading (it's long, too) and I will probably swap it in as a source when I'm done.

I had planned, before I learned that a book had been written about the case, on nominating it for FA last year in the hope of having it on the main page on the 35th anniversary of the crime earlier this year; since the pandemic also played a part in putting those plans on hold I am now shooting more for the 40th anniversary, so there's plenty of time to get it ready.

One problem this article has now, though, is that there's the informal requirement for FA that an article have at least one free image, and I thought until very recently that I had one, even if rather tangentially related to the text. Because there's nothing in it that would justify using any non-free images, and I haven't found any other free ones we could use to break up the wall o' text that the article has become (Or, I suppose, I could find a lot of external non-free images, and use {{external media}} to create those little boxes and break up the text flow better to make it easier on readers' eyes).

Would you be willing to search through the 25M+ images on Commons for one that might be on point? I have some other things to preoccupy me lately, or I'd do it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was I who removed the image of the police building. I'm sorry, but these "establishing shots" (like on a TV show, to show you to where the action's now shifted) tell the reader nothing. "Oh, look, a blocky nondescript office building with a car parked front. Interesting!" If FA requires a free image, then put that one back I guess. (Maybe the book will have an usable image. Lazarus with her creepy bug-eyes would be ideal.)

This is another excellent example of the stupidity of the FA rules and process: induces you to put in a meaningless image because, well, you have to have an image, doesn't matter how silly it is. Seriously, I suggest you skip FA and take personal pride in a job well done. EEng 00:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I just reviewed the FAC and didn't see that explicitly noted, just that all articles nominated must, where they use images, follow the image use policy.

I think that was a temporary thing, back around the time we began narrowing the use of fair-use images to what it is now, mainspace only with a justification. There were some FAs back then, about copyrighted narrative visual works like films and TV shows, that were just littered with screenshots and nary a free image in sight, and I think (understandably) the intent was to discourage that. We aren't having that problem now.

Yes I am proud of this article, and thank you for the praise. I do feel that if Murder of Leigh Leigh, slightly shorter, can have been a Main Page FA and remain one, this can too. But I'd still love to have pictures. Ideally the best one that could be done as a free image would be the Rasmussens' condo, which I think still exists. The problem with taking a picture isn't, for me, so much that it's in a gated community (I think it's next to the fence) as much as that it's 3,000 miles away from me. I don't know anybody here in LA who's that committed to taking pictures that I can ask.

And apart from that, things like any police or personal photos are still copyrighted.

I mean, I see your point about the rather establishing shot nature of the photo of Parker Center, and I won't put it back in for now, but I still would like to have something to break up the text a little bit, per the advice of former Australian newspaper editor Colin Wheildon in one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of layout (well, maybe the only one but after finishing it you don't think you need to read any more), Type & Layout: Are You Communicating Or Just Making Pretty Shapes Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, while the article's very comprehensive, I think it would be better if it were slimmed down, partly by cutting overdetail and partly y making the writing just plain more concise. EEng 22:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That will probably happen, since before I make any bid for an article's recognition, I print it out, go through it with a red pen, and copyedit that way. So I'll be doing that, probably after I get finished with the book. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Remember the man taking his bird for a walk? EEng 05:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I must confess, I'm missing the import of this one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Some article about a murder (or something) in China, and in it it said that "a man taking his bird out for a walk" reported seeing the victim outside Place P at Time T. I think you and I argued about whether the detail that the witness was taking his bird for a walk (charming image though that is) was worth including. EEng 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

OK ... I think that was Murder of Pamela Werner. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)