Talk:Murder of Lilie James

Validity of references
As of the time this discussion is posted, the body that NSW police have found has not been formally confirmed to be the accused murderer. Citation 32 is behind a paywall, and the archive link does not work. I was unable to locate any confirmation of this claim from NSW Police or any reputable news source at the current time. Wrenners868 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wrenners868 It is confirmed now just from these two links, . Im unsure why the link does not work but I put the archive link in the first. JC Kotisow (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet determined to be a murder-suicide
While this article overall appears to be about a case of murder-suicide, I think describing the apparent criminal incident at the second crime scene as a murder-suicide is incorrect. The cited source does not use that term, only saying Police were investigating if the perpetrator had killed himself. To use the term to describe only the second crime scene either original research, or at the very least editorializing. To even say that the incident was a suicide probably requires a coroner's inquest to investigate and determine the cause of death and the motives of the perpetrator. At this stage police are using terms like self-inflict wounds or self-harm. They are reporting the facts they have found, without making a determination of the motives of the person concerned so as not to prejudice the criminal investigation and forthcoming coronal inquiries. Wikipedia should not, either, because WP:SUSPECT still applies, even though the accused person might be dead, they should still be presumed innocent until a competent judicial authority, such as a coroner, determines otherwise. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cameron Dewe You're right, but most of the references I used and read said he "may" have killed himself but we will just have to wait until further details are released. Other than that, most of the other stuff I wrote was according to what the news was saying. JC Kotisow (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow: This is the difference between the news and a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia shouldn't speculate about the outcomes of investigations while those remain ongoing. At this stage, police have labeled this a homicide, which, in Australia, includes a range of offences including both murder and manslaughter, exactly which it is will depend on the coroner's findings. The "may" used by the news media is an indication of their uncertainty about what actually happened, and it is likely we will never know for certain, which is the standard Wikipedia seeks to attain. In some respects, Wikipedia should be above the news, and not even write an article about this sort of case until a court renders a verdict, and we know for certain. But I think that is a vain hope and a disservice to Wikipedia's readers, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cameron Dewe Ok man, I got your point. What are you suggesting we do then? JC Kotisow (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow: At this stage we are three days into the investigation of a potentially notable crime that might take several years to come to a conclusion. What makes this sort of event notable is its coverage both in-depth and persistent over time. A diverse range of sources with a broad geographic spread also suggests notability, so look for coverage of this crime in newspapers from around the world and in foreign languages. You might not need to use those sources in the article, but you might want to keep track them on the talk page to demonstrate this is significant news around the world. At some point, coverage of this case will drop out of the news cycle for a time before rearing its ugly head again at some indeterminable point in what currently seems like the far distant future. Or perhaps it won't. Time will tell; but we cannot. But I think it is better to keep developing this article and collecting relevant sources as they pop up, than to neglect or abandon writing about it now. Too much effort has gone in to getting this far to give up, despite what I have said above. In earlier times, newspapers would say "Proceeding" at the end of an article like this then give an update the next day, or next week on the progress since the last article. On Wikipedia, we can do better and keep articles updated with the latest developments. It is far easier to identify a range of diverse sources at the time they are published, cite them and permanently archive the links in a reliable archive, such as the Wayback machine while they are current news, than try and recover something that was overlooked from years ago and has now disappeared from a publisher's website. Good Wikipedia articles tend to get picked up by search engines as the go-to article about a particular subject. Eventually, the noise in the news media will dissipate as the news media moves on to the next hot thing to write about, but this Wikipedia article will endure, so make it the best it can be as the authoritative article about this crime. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cameron Dewe I completely agree with what you said. I will keep this updated if anything comes out. Some help in developing this article would be appreciated as well, although everyone got their own thing going. JC Kotisow (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @JC Kotisow: To understand what some good, and bad, Wikipedia articles might look like have a look at some other similar murder articles to give you ideas. A similar murder-suicide case is documented in the Killing of Gabby Petito. This Wikipedia article begins with a small biography introducing the victim and her relationship with the perpetrator. Also, the (now archived) discussions on how best to name this article may prove to be informative and an example of how Wikipedia reaches and records a consensus. Another, example might be the Murder of Sophie Elliott, this demonstrates how a murder might have a lasting effect. It also demonstrates how multiple people can be documented in a single article. Although I would not consider either article to be of the best quality, these are a couple that spring to mind immediately to demonstrate some of the issues you might face. Essentially when when writing about these sorts of crimes you need to consider you are going to be writing separate biographies for each of the victim and perpetrator who are only notable for one event the crime that resulted in their deaths. This is undoubtedly a challenging task, although not (quite) Mission Impossible, so I am not surprised you want help. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

citing tabloid newspapers
Is it a general rule that it's ok to cite tabloid newspapers? There are sections of the wiki that describe personal traits of Paul Thijssen and the citation is from a tabloid newspaper. Surely that can't be regarded as valid information to include? 37.228.200.78 (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Look at Reliable sources/Perennial sources and you will see that Daily telegraph is reliable JC Kotisow (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPSS actually only states that the UK newspaper is reliable, the Australian version is a tabloid, is generally unreliable and should not be sourced, see this noticeboard discussion. Happily888 (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Happily888 Even so, I only cited 11 from Daily telegraph and most of the info is supported from actual news outlets. The only thing in the article that is questionable is the last two sentences of the investigation section. JC Kotisow (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GUNREL; sources such as the Daily Telegraph should only be used in exceptional circumstances and not for information about living (or recently deceased) people. Happily888 (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Happily888 Look if it bothers you so much, I don't understand why you can't change it. You aren't even talking about the article, what is the tabloid suggesting that is wrong or misleading? JC Kotisow (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Happily888 Not it even if it bothers you, if you find something that does not comply with guidelines, shouldn't you change it? JC Kotisow (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)