Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 239: Line 239:

::To fix issues with bias or undue weight it would be relevant to mention the even more common references to 7 October 2023 AND who is saying them. I think that should be mentioned with Christchurch, but I hadn’t got around to writing it yet. Do you want to attempt something? [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 11:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

::To fix issues with bias or undue weight it would be relevant to mention the even more common references to 7 October 2023 AND who is saying them. I think that should be mentioned with Christchurch, but I hadn’t got around to writing it yet. Do you want to attempt something? [[User:LateNightCoffee|Late Night Coffee]] ([[User talk:LateNightCoffee|talk]]) 11:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:::I deleted the sentence completely. It is [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] and [[WP:OOS]]. [[User:Melbguy05|Melbguy05]] ([[User talk:Melbguy05|talk]]) 12:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:::I deleted the sentence completely. It is [[WP:OFFTOPIC]] and [[WP:OOS]]. [[User:Melbguy05|Melbguy05]] ([[User talk:Melbguy05|talk]]) 12:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:::I assume by 7 October 2023 you refer to the start of the [[Gaza war]]. In that case any mention of the start of the Gaza war is completely independent of comparisons to Christchurch (the subject of this talk page section) – I’m fairly sure that they weren’t Australians attacking Gaza in 2023.

:::I assume by 7 October 2023 you refer to the start of the [[Gaza war]]. In that case any mention of the start of the Gaza war is completely independent of comparisons to Christchurch (the subject of this talk page section) – I’m fairly sure that they weren’t Australians attacking Gaza in 2023.

:::If you want to discuss mentions of the Gaza war please start a new talk page section – it does not belong in this one. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 12:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:::If you want to discuss mentions of the Gaza war please start a new talk page section – it does not belong in this one. [[User:Mitch Ames|Mitch Ames]] ([[User talk:Mitch Ames|talk]]) 12:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Are all of victim names now public knowledge?
Have the family who previously wanted their name kept private willingly changed this? Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All victim names were released weeks ago. Matilda’s parents requested that her family name not be published. WWGB (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB, I agree it should stay first name only. @Aesurias has removed it now. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody added a surname for her with no source, so I removed it, because I knew her family previously said they wanted privacy, then I found that name in a few news stories from this week, so I undid my edit and asked here for a second opinion. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no list of general references for the article, but the box you removed said:

  • “This section includes a list of general references”
Those general references are at the end of the top line.

  • The fifteen victims killed in the shooting were:[1][2][3]
The 15 dot points below that do not have sufficient corresponding inline citations. There is no footnote for Matilda, or most other people on the list. Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The remark you cite indicates that the 15 names and details in the list are per the sources given at its end. If the introduction to a list is properly sourced, there’s no need to repeat those sources after each list item. (And doing so would in fact be needless clutter.) Gawaon (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Gawaon If it was an identical list of names in all 3 sources then putting them at the top would make sense, but it’s not. Not all of the information in each dot point is in all of the sources. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that doesn’t matter. It’s often the case that we add several references after a statement or group of statements. Then it’s usually the case that not every detail can be found in every source. As long as they support the whole statement (in this case, the whole list) together, everything is fine. If you suspect that some info in the list is not supported by any if the sources given after its intro (and no source for it is given within the specific list item), then, of course, you should challenge and possibly remove that info. Gawaon (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gawaon is correct. When I composed the list of victims, I chose the overarching sources to support every statement within the list. EVERY claim is supported at least once in the stem, and often THRICE. There is nothing to be gained by repeating the same sources over and over for each victim. If any new and noteworthy information comes to hand about a single victim, that can always be sourced inline against that victim. This sourcing method is consistent with other mass shooting articles. WWGB (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You now appear to be doing specifically what you were advised not to: attaching repetitive references against each victim. I have reverted such repetitive references until you gain consensus. Please see WP:ONUS. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB I added specific quotes. I see your point about repeating the same three footnotes after every point being unhelpful, so I did something different. Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to add any further references. Everything reported about the victims is already sourced in the three references given. Additional sources are only needed if something new is added and not covered in the existing references. I suggest you might commit your editing time to other areas that are deficient. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB have you found any good quality pages that have a comparably detailed victim list and no footnotes. Late Night Coffee (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB, can you give examples of other good quality articles that do that? Like I said before, if it was a list of just names or names + ages, and that same information was in every source then there would be no need to add detailed citations, but most of these contain additional details that are in only one or two of the sources. Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page has added details for each victim, e.g.

  • “Reuven Morrison, 62, a Soviet-born businessman who threw an object at the older gunman before being killed by the younger gunman”
  • “Marika Pogany, 82, a Slovak-born Australian volunteer who delivered meals and services to Jewish seniors”
I can’t find any examples that give details about each victim and multiple citations for the whole list.
Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
“most of these contain additional details that are in only one or two of the sources”. And what is wrong with that?
Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Victims is similar to Bondi in that much of the victim information is referenced in three sources at the bottom of the victim box.
You appear to be the only editor in Wikipedia who has an issue with the current sourcing in the Victims section. As I have said before, ALL of the victim list content is sourced in one, two or three of the overarching references. No further references need to be added. You seem to be searching for a problem where none exists.
There is no one-size-fits-all template for mass shootings. Each article reflects the considered consensus of the contributing editors. WWGB (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Sandy Hook above, it has individual citations for some victims, and the most detailed description on the list without an individual citation is: “Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist”. Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Gawaon, Matilda’s surname was unsourced, that has now been removed. After seeing people were adding unsourced information to the list, I was planning to spend a few hours checking everything else, and properly citing it, then remove anything else unsourced. If I add quotes from the sources, then next time something unsourced is added, it will take only seconds to check and remove. Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The combined list of multiple citations for multiple list points also makes it less likely to be noticed when people add uncited information that’s in none of the sources, like yesterday. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesurias, Thank you for fixing that. The list should stay first name only if the family haven’t directly said the name is correct and they want it used. Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WWGB @Aesurias it would probably help to have a footnote explaining why one surname is missing, to stop it being re-added repeatedly. Late Night Coffee (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be phrased without going out of Wikivoice?
For now, I have added < ! — invisible text — > aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won’t see it) (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesurias I like your note. I moved it slightly so that anyone trying to edit the name will see it before they find the name. I’m not sure how well it works in visual editing mode? Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m undecided about a note that is visible to readers, do you think it is a good idea? Do the sources about her usually explicitly say her parents want it kept private? Or just leave it unmentioned? Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Her middle name is public? But I don’t know how to clearly show that? Guardian article about funeral I’m also not very confident that The Guardian respect privacy, so it needs a second source. Late Night Coffee (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WWGB her name is a bit ambiguous. Her parents have different surnames. The name that has been added could be accurate or could be an inaccurate assumption based on one of her parents’ names. Also, the part of the note you removed didn’t say it was unknown, just not “confirmed”. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames, your edit:
29 January 2026

The style guide you linked says that people with the same surname should be referred to by their first name or full name unless they are the main topic of the article: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography #People_with_the_same_surname.

You could call him Akram if it was a biography page about him or a page about the criminal case against him, but not an event page that includes two people with that name.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography says, at the top, that it pertains, where applicable, to all articles that mention people, so I don’t think it matters whether this article is about the Akram’s specifically or merely mentions them.
My edit cited MOS:SURNAME, not MOS:SAMESURNAME. In essence, the former says use surname only; the latter says (with my emphasis here) To distinguish between people with the same surname … refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity.
In the specific section that I edited (“Criminal proceedings”) it is clear from the context which Akram was being mentioned (full name was used in first sentence), so I propose that MOS:SAMESURNAME is not applicable (there is no need to distinguish between the two Akrams in that sentence) and MOS:SURNAME should apply.
That being said:

  • I’m a big fan of consistency, and see the merit in consistent use of given names throughout the article (even when not required in a particular context to distinguish between two people), but
  • A search through the current article for “Akram” find many usages of both their full names (given and surname) where MOS:SAMESURNAME says we should be using only given name.
If you want to revert my edit and use Naveed instead of Akram you should probably also replace most of the instances of full name throughout the article with given name only.
It would be prudent to wait for other editors to comment – and this in an invitation for them to do so – before making such a change. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Full names should only be used in the infobox and first introductions (lead). Thereafter, only first (given) names need to be used. WWGB (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames If there is enough later to write a whole page about the trial or a biography of Naveed then he would be referred to formally by surname, but the “Criminal proceedings” section is only a paragraph. Even if it was longer, the section-by-section approach is too confusing, refer to people consistently on each page, like @WWGB said. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames those two links are sections on the same page. They’re both short subsections in the section “Names”. Clearly the “same surnames” is about this situation. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve reverted my edit so the sentence uses the given name again. I’ll leave it to someone else to replace the instances of full name with given name in the rest of the article (per my earlier comment) where applicable. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my removal of “deadliest terror attack”.
This edit added {{cn}} with the reason “removed below at 13:06 on 31 January 2026”. The removal edit was [3], which removed and the deadliest terror attack committed in Australia.[1]
However that reference says “the worst terrorist attack”, not the “deadliest”. The point of terrorism is to create fear, or to use “violence … to achieve political or ideological aims“, not actually to kill, so “worst” does not necessarily imply “deadliest”; worst could simply mean “most scared or injured people”. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You removed it claiming the information was repeated “those comparisons are already made in at least 2 other places in the article”, the only place it remained was the top section. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But you are correct that the version in the top section didn’t reflect the sources. The most common wording in sources that are well informed on the subject (e.g. Australian academics) is “worst” / most deadly terror attack “on Australian soil”.[2][3] Similar wording appears in the more recent foreign headlines, but the top section was repeatedly reverted to “deadliest in Australian history” The phrase “in Australian history” appeared in a few foreign media reports in the first few days, but it is inaccurate. The most deadly terror attacks “in Australian history” are Bali 2002 (killed 88 Australians) and Christchurch 2019 (51 people killed by an Australian) both mentioned in several sources about Bondi 2025. Several other sources specify Bondi 2025 as highest death count on Australian soil / within Australia’s borders, so “most deadly” is a reasonable interpretation of “worst” in ASPI and other sources saying “worst”, it’s one key aspect of how it was the worst. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re “deadliest in Australian history”: List of massacres of Indigenous Australians has quite a few more deadly incidents. If we were to use the phrase “Australian history”, it would need to be qualified, e.g. to “post-colonial Australian history” or “post-Federation …” or similar (“modern Australian history” is better than nothing, but “modern” is ambiguous or ill-defined).
Re Bali and Christchurch: I don’t think events that occur outside of Australia are unambiguously part of “Australian history”, so we should avoid any wording that makes that assumption.
The most common wording in sources that are well informed on the subject (e.g. Australian academics) is “worst” / most deadly terror attack …[2][3] — both of those reference say “worst”, not “most deadly”. See my earlier comment as to why we should not treat these as synonymous.
Several other sources specify Bondi 2025 as highest death count on Australian soil / within Australia’s borders — So cite those sources. Otherwise a reasonable interpretation is actually WP:SYNTHESIS. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I only said “deadliest terror attack” because it closely matched what was there before, I don’t object to “worst” as long as it’s specific to within Australia’s borders. Late Night Coffee (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only “worst” or “most deadly” within the category of “terrorist” attacks. Historical crimes against indigenous peoples are sometimes described as terrorism, but it’s not a common way to describe them. The recent attempted bombing in WA was terrorism, but the bomb didn’t explode, so that was only “could have been worse”. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that fit this event and the indigenous massacres are “mass shooting” and “massacre”. Port Arthur killed 35, and Bondi is compared to that in nearly every article. So the best way to describe it is biggest / most deadly “since 1996” or “in nearly 30 years”, the first is in numerous sources, the second is in a few. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For about two days news reports called it “second-deadlist mass shooting in Australian history” without “modern” or any other qualifier. Then there was a debate on here that added “modern”. The only sources that call it the “second-deadliest” mass shooting “in modern Australian history” (the thing people keep changing it back to) say it in a contexts that look like it was copied from this page, e.g. salemwitchmuseum.com ict.org.il it’s usually has “deadliest terror incident and second-deadliest mass shooting in modern Australian history” with slight variations, but all in the same order. Whereas worst / most deadly / etc. mass shooting “since 1996” is used in a wide variety of contexts. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the quotes within references are way too long. They should only support facts which are contained in the article text, not wander off into other editorial content. Excessive quotes also move us closer to COPYVIO. I will be reducing the length of reference quotes over the next few days. WWGB (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. WWGB (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drew Pavlou warrants a specific mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Bondi_Beach_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1336540122

10:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC) Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree. It gives undue weight to a rather obscure and later-deleted Twitter post. It also implies that Pavlou concocted/masterminded the story and spread it while knowing it was a lie, but the source doesn’t say any of that. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won’t see it) (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving an info note: the topic of Drew Pavlou has been brought up before, see archived discussion. Nakonana (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames I meant Bondi was already famous before the attack, but I don’t know how to make that any more clear than it was in the bit you removed? Does “already famous before the attack” work? Late Night Coffee (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With many edits happening, it would be helpful if you include a link to the diff when you refer to an edits. Eg in this case I presume you mean [4].
Bondi’s fame – and its being a “globalised symbol of the Australian lifestyle” – was neither the cause nor the result of the attack, so there is no need to mention it at all in this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you would remember your own edit, but I’ll add a link next time. I thought you were saying the attack didn’t lead to the fame? “there’s nothing to suggest that Bondi’s fame is related to the attack” did you mean it in the other direction?
I wasn’t implying a relationship in either direction. Just stating “background” information about the location.
Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is Background information describing the location, and a source about the event included it. I thought that was the criteria for “Background”? Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee: Why did you restore the “Comparisons to Christchurch mosque shootings” section in this edit. Your edit summary “Returned some sections that were blanked or nearly blanked a few hours ago” does not mention this section. The section had been removed by @0HMYL0RDE: in this edit with an edit summary of “WP:UNDUE only loosely connected to the main event and the links are conjecture at best”. Melbguy05 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That editor was a brand new account that blanked multiple sections in a 3 hour editing session between 09:00 and 12:00 UTC on 4 February 2025. I don’t know where the policy page is, but from what I have seen other people do, the procedure is to revert it to how it was before and wait for the editor who did it to explain themself. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did not describe every section they removed because they removed multiple parts of the article and edit summaries have a character limit. I described all the things I did in the edit, with only about 3 characters left. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I combined it into one edit with other things that could be counted as a “revert” to comply with the “one revert per day” rule on this page. Somebody got angry at me on this talk page for accidentally breaking that rule – we were editing at the same time and I accidentally over-wrote their edit when I saved mine – I have been following that rule a bit obsessively since then. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee: The section starts with “Media, academics, and leaders from Australia and elsewhere in the Asia Pacific frequently compared the Bondi terror attack to the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings”. This fails verification WP:V in the sources provided. I can’t see the New Zealand event being compared in the sources provided. There are brief mentions to the New Zealand event in the sources but no comparison. The section should be removed. Melbguy05 (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The events are compared at length in The Sydney Morning Herald in an interview with a national security expert from Australian National University. There is also a very lengthy comparison in a source from New Zealand that someone has deleted from the New Zealand reactions section, in an edit that I haven’t been able to find, so I don’t know if they explained it. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the text is misleading then you can edit the text to improve it. I said “compared” because that was short and some sources did compare it. I couldn’t think of anything better at the time but possibly “mentioned alongside” is better? Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of that guideline is that removing the section would be “WP:UNDUE“, the policy opens with:

  • “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints”. (emphasis in the original)
Christchurch is mentioned as a similar event in numerous sources from Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Removing that section results in a regional bias against the part of the world where the event happened. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the “Remembering the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings” section should be removed. The events were completely unrelated. If many media outlets made the comparison (for reasons that are unlikely to encyclopaedic) at most we should have one sentence, eg “many media outlets made comparisons with the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings[ref][ref][ref][ref]” – and the section heading (if we need one) ought to be “comparisons …”, not “remembering …” Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee: You changed the section title to “Remembering the 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings” and slightly reworded the section introduction. The claim that “News media from the Asia Pacific region often mentioned” the New Zealand event alongside the Bondi Beach shooting is loosely relevant information WP:OOS. “Australian university academics often mentioned” fails verification WP:V in the sources provided. “some directly compared the events” also fails verification in the sources provided. WP:NPOV doesn’t apply as there are no significant viewpoints (a dispute) in the sources with only brief mentions of the New Zealand event. The section should be removed. The events are completely unrelated. Melbguy05 (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still working on it, see also below. The academics are from Australian National University (Sydney Morning Herald), Deakin University (the Straits Times), the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank (in a long list), and another writing in Overland. For the comparisons please read the two SMH articles. The Wion and ST also articles say the death toll was higher in 2019, I would call that a direct comparison. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave out the word “academics” if you prefer. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In some of the sources, the point about 2019 seemed to be paraphrasing academics who the journalist interviewed. But by a very cautious re-reading of those it’s not 100% clear if it’s the view of the academic or the journalist, is that what you mean? It seemed like a fair summary when I read the sources, but the word “academics” is not important. We can just say “reports from” if you prefer. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Melbguy05 what do you mean by “significant viewpoints (a dispute) in the sources”? Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05 you didn’t answer my question. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames I changed it to remembering because Melbguy objected to “comparisons” above, and I thought he made a good point.
Originally I started a broader section named something like “Comparisons to other events”. That probably would be better and more justified, but I narrowed it because nobody added any other examples and I wasn’t very interested in adding them myself, but I can try?
They’re a pair of very similar events in multiple meaningful ways – high casualty mass shootings, by Australian terrorists, in the 21zt century, against religious gatherings, etc. – and multiple reliable sources have pointed out those similarities.
News from North America doesn’t mention the 2019 attack very often because the people writing those articles don’t know much about Australia. But from Asia, and in better source from Australia, it is a big theme.
It’s in the “Reactions” section, it’s not implying a direct connection, just that it was an event that was raised very frequently in a wide variety of sources and contexts. Less often than Port Arthur, but often.
Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LateNightCoffee:

  • This The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) ref doesn’t compare it. It says that ”West is an expert on all types of radicalisation – far right, like Brenton Tarrant”. There is no quote from Levi West at the Australian National University that compares the two events and says that they are similar.
  • This SMH ref – the former Christchurch councillor doesn’t compare the events and say that they are similar in quote. There is only a discussion on the NZ Royal Commission and whether Australia should have a national royal commission.
  • The Straits Times ref – Greg Barton from Deakin University doesn’t compare the events and say that they are similar in a quote.
  • The Australian Strategic Policy Institute ref – Chris Taylor doesn’t compare the events and say that they are similar.
  • The Overland ref – Tasnim Mahmoud Sammak doesn’t compare the events and say that they are similar.
Melbguy05 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05, this is all things I already changed to the way you wanted them.
I already removed the word “compare” / “comparison” based on your narrow way of defining it above, but @Mitch Ames or somebody else re-added it to the heading. You need to resolve that dispute with whoever charged it back. I don’t care about the word “compare”.
I already took out the ASPI Chris Taylor citation, because Christchurch is only one word in a list, and there were three others sources from Australia.
I already removed the word “academics” because the articles interviewed academics but didn’t quote them directly about this specific point. I already said this above, in the thread where I answered your message at 00:55 (UTC) on 6 February 2026, and I already changed it on the page.
The articles from respected newspapers that interview experts (two of which describe 2019) are better quality sources than the churnalism (that usually doesn’t mention 2019), but they’re already just described on the page as “news reports” or “article” or similar with links to the newspapers.
Late Night Coffee (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames or somebody else re-added [“compare/comparison”] to the heading —
As I stated in my edit comment, I added the word because that section is/was a subset of “Reactions” and the Christchurch massacre was not a reaction to the Bondi shooting, the comparisons were a reaction to the Bondi shooting. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stairs Times says 2025 and 2019 are both terrorists attacks with an Australian connection and that 2019 killed more people.

“Prof Barton said the Bondi shooting was “the worst terrorist attack on Australian soil”, while noting that more Australians died in the Bali bombing – an attack by Islamists in 2002 that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians. The worst attack by an Australian was a 2019 attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, by a gunman who killed 51 people.”
Only the Bali 2002 is directly attributed to the professor, so the point about 2019 is credited to the newspaper in the current version of the page. WION news also said the same thing, but said “most shocking” instead of “worst”. Currently the page says deadliest, which @Mitch Ames objected to in a different context. WION and ST both said something different meaning biggest or most extreme and listed a death toll, but if you can think of a better word, change it.
Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per my earlier comment, I have replaced the entire section with a single sentence (and I have no objections to that sentence being deleted completely if anyone wants to do that). Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitch Ames you deleted three of the references, was an error? And if not, do you have specific reasons for which you deleted? Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally removed references that did not mention Christchurch (in the text) or merely mentioned it (eg as a separate paragraph near the end of the article) without actually comparing it to Bondi. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch Ames I like your idea of combining it with the “Bondi massacre” label, but I think both need to say who is saying that. There’s a distinct regional skew in who remembers 2019, that should be stated. I’ve not looked at the massacre example yet. The sources are mostly local but could be quoting someone elsewhere. Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To fix issues with bias or undue weight it would be relevant to mention the even more common references to 7 October 2023 AND who is saying them. I think that should be mentioned with Christchurch, but I hadn’t got around to writing it yet. Do you want to attempt something? Late Night Coffee (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the sentence completely. It is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:OOS. Melbguy05 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@LateNightCoffee: I assume by 7 October 2023 you refer to the start of the Gaza war. In that case any mention of the start of the Gaza war is completely independent of comparisons to Christchurch (the subject of this talk page section) – I’m fairly sure that they weren’t Australians attacking Gaza in 2023.
If you want to discuss mentions of the Gaza war please start a new talk page section – it does not belong in this one. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

all we know is that they were investigated for connections. We don’t yet know motivations. ~2026-80989-9 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They had home made ISIS flags displayed in their car. The manifesto allegedly explicitly expressed support for the ideology. “Inspired” doesn’t mean they had two-way communication with anyone else in the group. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For a previous discussion regarding the phrasing see Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting/Archive 5#intro. Nakonana (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top