Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting

Why not simply name the event referenced when writing "since the beginning of the Gaza war in October 2023" ?

In the "Background" section, the uptick in antisemitic attacks is said to have started at "beginning of the Gaza war in October 2023". Wouldn't it be more precise to just cite the Hamas led attacks on Israel that marked the beggining of the war ? Right now, it just feels like avoiding to name the event at all costs. Jojo Toto (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Because that's not when it started. The attack isn't Hamas, it's Daesh, a rival group who began to incite attacks separately, not on 7 October 2023. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 20:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This article references the begining of the Gaza War in particular, I see no mention of Daesh. I am talking about the "rizing antisemitism part", not who incited this partiuclar attack. @LateNightCoffee: Jojo Toto (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Marcus ASIO claim failed verification

Hello LateNightCoffee, in this edit, I’m not seeing textual support for the claim ASIO disputed the allegation, saying that Marcus had mixed up Naveed with a different person in the source you cited.

Can you provide any textual support from any source for the claim? Mikewem (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Part of that is in a different source, "mixed up Naveed with a different person". I worried I wouldn't be able to fix it in a single revert if you continued to repeatedly delete parts, but I couldn't leave it there without the other part "ASIO disputed the allegation". That first part is in the source I already added. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 02:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the different source and what is its textual support for "mixed up Naveed with a different person".

And what is the textual support from ABC for "ASIO disputed the allegation" Mikewem (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

1. What is the different source and what is its textual support for "mixed up Naveed with a different person". Do you want to re-add the section?

2. what is the textual support from ABC for "ASIO disputed the allegation" Read the article.

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 05:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There are sources on the other page. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 08:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you didn’t include those sources here originally and I don’t understand why you haven’t provided text from them yet. See WP:BURDEN Mikewem (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add it you can find your own sources for it! I linked the page that has the sources you need. I don't understand why you are still talking about this? It's not on the page and I'm not currently trying to re-add it. There is no need to keep talking about a half sentence you already deleted 2 days ago. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

If you really need a full explanation for an error I made two days ago that is no longer on the page: I had multiple sources for that sentence. I added one source that I thought covered everything, it was missing one detail, the detail was in one of the other sources I had open. It would have taken a while to find which source had the missing detail, and I didn't want to leave a misleading half-story there. So I deleted the misleading version left by your partial deletion, because I knew I could do that in one self-revert. Whereas as partial fix of re-adding the half my first source covered uses up a real revert. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Protocol?

What do you mean by "protocol"?

05:26, 31 May 2026 ... WWGB ... 273,385 bytes −2,930  →Elsewhere overseas: trim platitudes to nation names, it's just protocol undo thank Tag: Visual edit

This is not what most pages about major terrorist attacks look like:

Elsewhere overseas

The attack was condemned by the leaders of many other nations,[1][2] in particular, France,[3] India,[4] Iran,[5][6] Jordan,[7] Pakistan,[8] the Palestinian Authority,[a][9] Qatar,[7] Saudi Arabia,[10][7] Turkey,[11][12] and the United Arab Emirates.

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

When a page about a notable event gets too long, reactions get their own page:

• Reactions to the September 11 attacks

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 09:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

When there is an international attack or disaster, other nations send there thoughts or condolences. It's just part of international diplomacy. There is nothing notable about it. Many other articles just list the nations that send messages. If you want to start an International Reactions page, that's fine, All that stuff is just bloating this article and adds nothing to understanding the issue. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any actual examples of the "Many other articles..." that "...just list the nations that send messages" and are those terrorist attacks? International reactions are a more notable part of the story for this than they would be for 16 people being killed in another disaster or crime. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Support this condensing Mikewem (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, Reactions to the September 11 attacks is all the reactions. No individual events have an "international reactions" page? The closest I can find is October 7 attacks § International, but the main page linked there is integrated into the International reactions to the Gaza war. We could split out the entire Aftermath and or Reactions sections, but those are not the best part to split out from the page. The most independently notable element to split out is the surviving gunman, Naveed Akram. The reactions are notable as part of the event. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 22:50, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Undue weight tag for the King

Per this tag (not the cn part, that was exceptionally easy to resolve), are officially released statements from a country’s head of state due in articles about national tragedies in that country? Mikewem (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)