Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting/Archive 6

@Pincrete, should we have a separate discussion section about how to describe Sajid's religion?

I think he's currently described appropriately, unless the page has changed recently? He's from a Muslim family, married a Christian, didn't have much contact with any Muslim relatives except his son, nobody aware of prior religious extremists views, etc.

But @WWGB seems very confident that Sajid was a practicing Muslim? Do you have a source for that?

I was making the assumption too until recently, when I reread things and realised it's not actually there. It's a dubious assumption, like the two different surnames that people have added to the page for Matilda.

The very incomplete information that I have seen about Sajid is consistent with him being either Muslim, Christian, or non-religious for most of his adult life.

I do not remember seeing any sources, even unreliable sources, that directly describe Sajid himself using the word "Muslim" or "Islam" except @WWGB asserting so in this thread.

I thought I remembered one source that indirectly called Sajid a Muslim, by saying that to Naveed, Islam was "his father's religion" but when I found the article again it said Naveed was close to "his father" and "his religion" referring to Naveed's own religion, with a comma in between.

The only minority community I've seen Sajid reported as having any contact with is a Serbian Australian hunting club. The club is not currently described as Serbian on the page, but this is mentioned in sources, and their social media has videos in Serbian.

Sajid's religion is unknown. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

According to: ^[1]

"Ye Ye, a preacher in Australia's pro-IS network, said he met Sajid Akram at a Sydney mosque"

"The mosque's president said Sajid Akram also attended itikaf" (an Islamic spiritual retreat involving seclusion in a mosque)

"Sajid and Naveed had attended the mosque regularly," the mosque's president said in a statement

"He [Sajid] justified his [Isaac El Matari's] plans as it's required from us as Muslims — to support the Islamic State, to fight on behalf of them"

I'm surprised there should be any doubt as to Sajid's religion. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realise that there was any uncertainty about either's religion and am slightly surprised. I can't offer a view then on how to deal with that here then. I do know however (from British Intelligence reports), that 'radicalised' people are more often converts or from 'lapsed' families than active, practicing ones. Pincrete (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the only uncertainty is with User:LateNightCoffee WWGB (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I would need to see the sourcing that says he was maybe Christian or maybe non-religious. My initial inclination is to categorize doubt about his religious affiliation as an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Mikewem (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the opposite of my point. We should NOT say either of those. We should LSO describe him using the word "Muslim". Because zero reliable sources in English directly state ANY of these things directly as a statement of fact. Late Night Coffee (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, I haven't seen this before, so thank you for the link. But this isn't a reliable source stating something as fact, the ABC are quoting disputed claims.

From what I've read so far, the claim is not that he was "Muslim" or "practiced Islam", the claim is that he "supported ISIS" (paraphrasing). You and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi might agree that is synonymous, but I disagree with both of you.

If a source says he was at a mosque the page should say "he was at a mosque". If the source says the claim about him being at a mosque was made by "Ye Ye, a preacher in Australia's pro-IS network" the page should say that him being at the mosque was a claim made by a pro-ISIS preacher. I don't know why you would trust "a preacher in Australia's pro-IS network", because I definitely wouldn't. I do not take statements by (alleged) pro-ISIS preachers as reliable sources of fact.

@WWGB @Mikewem For information about Sajid's religious beliefs we need to be very careful that we are reading sources correctly and not adding our own deductions to the page as facts.

There is a conflict with his family on the topic of religion reported by a reliable source: The News Minute, the South Indian division of Newslaundry, the latter of which is on the reliable sources green list.

ASIO only describe Naveed as being on their watch list, but they probably want a conviction and the dead guy can't be convicted. Sajid's religious beliefs are a contested issue, and Sajid level of support for ISIS is likely to feature strongly in Naveed's criminal trial.

I do not know what the reality is. It is not possible to know from the current evidence. It is possible that he was the instigator of the attack, and as an adult he was better at keeping his extremist beliefs secrets. It is also possible that he was a moderate Muslim, or a non-Muslim, who got radicalised by his son after separating from his wife.

We shouldn't be stating anything disputed as fact.

Late Night Coffee (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

What is disputed? The mosque president has said (twice) that Sajid was Muslim. No-one disputes that. Do you think he was lying? Why would he not be a reliable source? What is this "conflict with his family on the topic of religion" of which you speak? Did his family say he was not a Muslim? I have not seen anyone, anywhere (other than you) who does not believe Sajid was Muslim. WWGB (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, His family have also not said he is Muslim. The dispute about religion with his family is that they shunned him for marrying a "Christian". They have not specified whether he converted to marry her. To have a Catholic wedding, he would need to be a baptised Christian. An Islamic marriage wouldn't need either to convert, officially the bride can be any of the faiths that's as People of the Book, but his family strongly disapprove for reasons that are not explained in detail in any source. I could speculate at great length on this, but really I can't assess the probability of any of the possibilities, it is an unknown. All we know is that his marriage and religion were sources of conflict in his life. His marriage broke down very shortly before he allegedly carried out a terrorist attack in the name of a group that you describe as Islamic. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

To have a Catholic wedding, he would need to be a baptised Christian. An Islamic marriage wouldn't need either to convert — Australia has secular marriage, which does not place any constraints on the religion or lack thereof of either party. "Marrying a Christian woman" in Australia does imply a Christian wedding - some Christians get married in a secular ceremony to non-Christians. (Note also that "Christian" and "Catholic" are not synonomous, the latter being only a subset of the former.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem. The details of this don't have enough sources to go on the page, but I'll clarify what I said in a collapsed section.

More information Response about marriage ...

Response about marriage

That was about two different possibilities. Secular legal wedding plus Islamic wedding Wedding in a Catholic church They might have also been married in another Christian church, but most Italian Australians are Catholics or non religious. Most Australian Muslims have separate weddings for the legalities and religious aspects. The Catholic church in Australia are able to do the paperwork for a legally binding wedding, so Australian Catholics do just one wedding. At the time they were married a Catholic church in Australia would have required him to be a baptised Christian. I think they still do. The secular + Islamic scenario is possibly more likely, the other scenario is an interesting possibility. The secular step has no religious criteria. The Islamic step would accept a Christian bride. The third scenario is they had no religious wedding at all. Him being an atheist for a large proportion of his adult life is very likely. Another possibility is they had a Christian wedding and then an Islamic wedding, this is a messy scenario but would explain the conflict. I found one unreliable source from India that said they had an Islamic wedding there after a wedding "according to Australian custom" that could be either Christian or secular. I didn't even keep a link to the source, I wouldn't trust most Indian media as a lone source for coverage of their Muslim minority. The News Minute is a regional subdivision of a reliable source on the green list, so we can trust that, but a lot of others have a pro-BJP bias.

Close

I have been trying to explain and issue of terminology, and sources but people keep asking speculative questions. I'll respond to speculative points but pre-collapse them.

The only part of the marriage story that belongs on the page is that he "married a Christian woman" and that this caused conflict with his family in India. That is sourced to The News Minute, one of the few Indian media outlets that I would trust for stories about minority religions. They're a Southern Indian subdivision of Newslaundry, which is on the reliable sources green list. This part of the story was also repeated in other sources. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, It is a controversial topic so we should be careful to write only what the sources say, and not add what we "believe" based on the sources. It really doesn't matter what either of us "believe", only what reliable sources SAY. Late Night Coffee (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, It's not just about the issue of fact, it's the framing, language, and terminology. In reliable sources the only people directly described as "Muslim" are Ahmed al-Ahmed and the victims of Islamophobic retaliation. You have still not provided ANY reliable sources that describe him in the same words you are using? Late Night Coffee (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, ABC TV (a reliable source) quotes the mosque president twice saying Sajid was a Muslim. I have nothing further to add to this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, The ABC also quote Donald Trump, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to write a Wikipedia article the way Donald Trump speaks. There are two separate issues.

1. Terminology, which I explained in the message you were replying to.

2. Factual uncertainty, which I explained in the previous messages.

The ABC quoting a religious extremists isn't the ABC using that terminology, it's you talking like an ISIS-linked preacher. Late Night Coffee (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

⬆️ @Mikewem, I explained my point a bit more clearly here. In narrative voice the ABC say "attended" so we should say "attended", not an identity label. Late Night Coffee (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@WWGB, I retract what I said about the mosque president's credibility, I had two men mixed up. But he's also not calling either alleged terrorist a Muslim. He says they were in the building, he kicked out the group they were with, and the rest of the group stopped showing up.

What this says is that one credible witness saw that he attended a mosque with his son, but then they left after their associates were kicked out for being disruptive.

The president is more credible than I thought. I thought YeYe and "mosque president" were the same man from your quotes. But the mosque presented seems to be a normal Muslim? Not ISIS linked? So he's somewhat more credible, he's no less credible than average random person, but also no more credible. He's still one person, who seems to have only briefly met them in public contexts, not known them well. Late Night Coffee (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

ABC says in its narrative voice that he attended mosque By his 40s, he worked in fruit shops and attended a Sydney mosque. To me, “attended” implies that he participated in formal prayer. That may be too far of a leap, I don’t know.

We don’t even say in the article that he attended a Sydney mosque (and I’m thinking that maybe we should). If nothing else, is all of this enough to not introduce undue doubt about his religious affiliation? Mikewem (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, thank you for finding that. WWGB and I have been having difficulty explaining our point to each other here. My point in this is "How should the page describe Sajid?" and I asked for a source using the word "Muslim", this does not. But it is interesting new information.

It wasn't there already because this was only published this week. He was dead and not many people who knew him had said much to the media. It should be mentioned on the page very cautiously, highlighting that it comes from one investigation, keeping the "by his 40s", and phrased as closely to the original wording as possible "attended", not "worshipped" or "was Muslim" just "attended".

The point I have been trying to make here is about wording and referencing. My speculation about the facts really isn't relevant. e.g. I think Bibi saw a video if Ahmed and Trump saw a video of Boris, but this doesn't belong on the page, right? Currently I think Bibi made a mistake, but a word like "mistake" or "error" doesn't belong on the page without attribution, right?

When the the speech in Hebrew went viral, a huge number of people jumped to the conclusion that Bibi was being dishonest. At the time this seemed like a safe assumption, because the reality was extremely improbable. But it turned out a near identical thing happened twice, once with a Muslim and once with a Jew in a country where both are a tiny minority. That's almost impossible, but it happened. The very safe assumption about him being dishonest was wrong.

"Connecting the dots" between "came from Muslim family" and "attended mosque in his 40s" to assume his religion in between, seems like a safe assumption, but the sources don't say that. So the page shouldn't say that. Partly because very unlikely things can be true. But mostly because THE SOURCES DON'T SAY anything about the time in between, or what he believed. Really that's the only valid point, and I should stop speculating, but I find the unlikely possibilities interesting.

My main point is not about what he believed, it's about how we describe him. No sources used the word Muslim to describe anyone there except Ahmed. So the page should not use the word "Muslim" to describe anyone who was there, other than Ahmed. Late Night Coffee (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

At the moment, the religious background of the perpetrators appears to be the Elephant in the room. Very few sources are explicitly using 'the M word', but a great deal of the coverage appears to be taking his religious background as a given, without actually stating it (eg by referring to what he did at Ramadan or explicitly Muslim events/ideas). The ABC text above which Mikewem quotes ( he "attended a Sydney mosque".) is one of the few that makes any explicit statement about father's religious background. We can't know what role 'religious beliefs' played in motivating this pair, but that the father was from a background that is often seen as/sees itself as in opposition to the victim group (Jews), is highly relevant, and not saying anything a bit remiss IMO.

In the real world, "Mary is a Catholic" often means merely "Mary was born and raised in a Catholic family", we don't know or ask Mary how much of the dogma or practice she adheres to or still believes in, how much she pays lip-service to etc. On WP, we wil often render that as "Mary was born and raised in a Irish Catholic family", indicating her cultural background, but by-passing the issue of what Mary actually believes, unless we have explicit info, and it is relevant.

I'm not sure how to apply that here, information about the religious background of the father seems as vague as about the man himself. Pincrete (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete this is EXACTLY what I was saying. I just wasn't explaining it well. "On WP, we wil often render that as "Mary was born and raised in a Irish Catholic family", indicating her cultural background, but by-passing the issue of what Mary actually believes, unless we have explicit info, and it is relevant." Say what the sources say, the way they say it, without adding extra extrapolation or assumptions about a dead man's beliefs.

But note, any claims from the ABC / Four Corners report need attribution. The ABC are reliable but they specifically described most sources from that particular investigation as unverified. Some of the people they spoke to are fairly neutral, like Naveed's school friends offering descriptions of him as a bit obsessively religious. But the particular informant it relies on heavily "Marcus" is specifically refuted by ASIO and some details contradict what others said.

It's relevant to include, but it needs attribution, rather than being stated as fact like most ABC reporting from sources they have been able to verify. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's probably most clear to make a subsection in "Investigations" that introduces that report (the Four Corners episode and associated online articles), says who "Marcus" is, and gives a sentence or two about the dispute between ASIO and the ABC. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

ABC: "He [Sajid] justified his [Isaac El Matari's] plans as it's required from us as Muslims — to support the Islamic State, to fight on behalf of them," he said...Marcus claimed the Akrams attended Wisam Haddad's radical prayer hall, Al Madina Dawah Centre, over several years.

Daily Telegraph: "Multiple sources within the Muslim funeral sector claimed a local undertaker had accepted the body, and had performed a basic service in accordance to the faith."

It seems a little silly to ask "was he Muslim" when reliable sources say that:

1) he attended prayer halls and frequented mosques for years

2) he supported the Islamic State

3) he was buried in accordance with Muslim traditions and with Muslim rites (see DT article)

4) his family were Muslim

5) his father (the other attacker) was Muslim

I find it hard to believe a converted Catholic would be regularly seen at a very well-known prayer hall, be supportive of ISIS and be buried as a Muslim. While Muslims marrying outside of their religions is less common than in some other religions, the area of Sydney they lived in is multicultural and it is not particularly surprising, nor is it indicative of a conversion.

I would guess that there is a lack of sources explicitly saying "he is Muslim" because it's a given. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The question is How should the page describe Sajid's religion? rather than "what was Sajid's religion?". Nobody thinks he might have converted to XYZ-ism recently, but given the paucity of explicit information (but tons of other info about prayer habits/Ramadan/radicalisation etc), what do we say. Describing him as Muslim would be unverifiable, saying that he attended ABC mosque probably would not. nb Sajid IS the father, the son (the other attacker) is Naveed Pincrete (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely true, good reasoning! I think that much like the sources used, the Wikipedia page doesn't need to make an explicit mention of their religion, just mention the mosque. This way, we aren't omitting anything from the sources nor are we assuming anything. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, the current first paragraph is horrific. I have only seen the attack described in those words in very one-sided sources. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Pincrete yes, the mosque belongs in the section about Sajid, "two Muslim men" does not belong in the first paragraph, and it definitely does not belong before ISIS. I've not worked on this page as much for a few days and it's gone beyond "biased", the first paragraph currently reads like an extremist hate site. Late Night Coffee (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that the ABC source is an unnamed undercover agent, 'quoting' statements that he claims the father made in 2019. The likelihood of his memory being exact is pretty minimal, even if the 'drift' of what he remembers is accurate. I don't doubt that both were Muslims, but these words are very probably not "out of the horse's mouth" as they seem. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s also something in there about ASIO saying the agent was "unreliable and disgruntled". I’m going to delete the quote from the ref.

There is no RS that explicitly says “the Akrams were Muslims”. There is no RS that expresses any shred of doubt that they were Muslims. RS describe them in a way that would lead a reader to reasonably conclude that the only possibility is that they were Muslims (going to itikaf, working with an IS street preacher, attending mosque, etc) Mikewem (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I will say that the wording in the ABC story does not give me the impression that Marcus is presenting a direct quote from Sajid. ABC directly quotes Marcus’ general summary of his recollection of Sajid’s expressions of support for IS. To me, this seems like a reasonable amount of detail to have remembered. Mikewem (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

WWGB, Regarding this revert, can you provide a source that highlights their nationality? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

BBC: "Sajid Akram was an Indian passport holder, but his children were born in Australia and are Australian citizens, the official added."

BBC Global Podcast: "Police say one Bondi attacker was Indian citizen"

The Hindu: "One of the Bondi Beach attackers was an Indian citizen who last visited Hyderabad in 2022: police"

PBS: "The new restrictions would include making Australian citizenship a condition of qualifying for a firearms license. That would have excluded Sajid Akram, who was an Indian citizen with a permanent resident visa." aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias, @Kautilya3, even if it's true, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph without mentioning Naveed is Australian and was born in Sydney. The current version says "two Muslim men" and that's worse, but the version from a few days ago that mentioned India without Australia was still undue and biased.

Sajid lived in Australia for more than half of his life, his reported associates were Italian Australian (Naveed's mother, Naveed, and presumably his siblings), Serbian Australian (the gun club), and a diverse variety of Australians from other backgrounds, none of whom have any reported connection to India. The only sources about Sajid and India say he had minimal connection to India. The only source cited on the page that mentions both ISIS and India says half as many migrants to ISIS came from India compared to Australia.

The most accurate way to say it is "Australian resident born in India" and "Australian citizen born in Sydney", it could be shorter but shouldn't say India without Australia. I think it's important to mention Naveed came from Australia. Possibly India belongs as well, but only if we include both. Late Night Coffee (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

He held an Indian passport and maintained Indian citizenship, so “born in India” felt insufficient to me, but I went with “an Indian national residing in Australia”. I do think it’s important to clarify that he was an Australian resident. Mikewem (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I wrote "Indian immigrant", which states the full facts without making an ado about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"Indian immigrant" says nothing about his status in Australia - it could mean visitor, resident or citizen. WWGB (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not use the vague “immigrant” for this precise reason. Thanks WWGB Mikewem (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Some fascinating things have happened to the lede while you've been on hiatus. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @StAnselm: I’m remembering a discussion here (I can dig it up if needed) where iirc we landed on the Sydney Telegraph being covered by WP:TABLOID and that we should not use it for this topic. It’s paywalled, so I can’t even see it. Can you copy the text that says his wife claimed the body from it? Mikewem (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, the discussion was much less conclusive than I remember. I think it is something of an open question of what happened to his remains, if the Telegraph has an answer, then we should include it and attribute it to them. Either way, since it’s paywalled, can you archive it? Mikewem (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure, that's why I thought it was better just to remove the whole burial claim. I'm not sure we have the sourcing to say she changed her mind. StAnselm (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There’s a Telegraph exclusive that I haven’t read the entirety of, but it claims that he did quietly receive Muslim burial rites.

Separately, there are multiple (I think reliable) sources that mention the wife’s refusal. They generally say something like, ‘that means he would be expected to have a destitute burial’, without going so far as to say that the burial was carried out. One editor wrote something like “he would have a destitute state burial” for our article. That was a potentially confusing use of the word “would” and it was rightly removed.

I think we should restore the sentence as it was prior to your most recent removal with this source. Mikewem (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Other coverage: the Nightly 7News Sky News Mikewem (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it here, but the Australian Jewish Association posted the whole article. It's from 1 February, and so supersedes the refusal coverage from late December. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s the article I was vaguely familiar with. I didn’t realize it also reported that it involved her claiming the body. You got this one right. We should just leave the whole thing out. Thanks for your time on this. Mikewem (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem! StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The title should say, 2025 Bondi Beach Terror Attack https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-day-mourning-honour-victims-bondi-terrorist-attack DarwinBlackbeard (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, a 'terrorist attack' (the term used by the source here) has a precise legal definition, whereas 'terror attack' does not (it is a very general term used mainly by news sources). Both terms (and 'shooting' and other terms) may be being used/have been used.

Our titles are based on WP:COMMONNAME, that is the term most recognisable to the reader. So in order to make a title change, someone would need to show what the term most commonly being used is. It is often the case that with incidents like this, it takes a while for a COMMONNAME to be 'settle down' and be established. The COMMONNAME doesn't necessarily involve 'terror' or 'terrorist', even if the incident is ruled to be that, hence 9/11. Pincrete (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In the 'International responses' section, the lead sentence for US reads: Trump described the shooting as an "antisemitic attack". Sorry, but this is fairly pointless as a response, looking at the source, he doesn't appear to have even included the usual platitudes of outrage at the event and/or sympathy for the victims/Australia. While some US response is obviously in order, this one seems quite pointless. Pincrete (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It is difficult because it makes sense that he would be included in the "international responses" section, but his response wasn't anything that literally everybody else hasn't already said. It was, by definition, an antisemitic attack. Maybe just scale it back and use no quote. Did he actually condemn it? If so, we can just say that. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Did he actually condemn it?, not really, only implicitly. Even the word 'terrible' appears to be outside the quote marks (terrible "antisemitic attack") , and he was commenting on 3 events, including this one. Pincrete (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This highlights the silliness of including entirely predictable responses in such a section. It really is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

In the video, he uses the word terrible at 1:03. Mikewem (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ToI (cited right next to PBS in the section) gives the full quote: “That was a terrible attack, 11 dead, 29 badly wounded. And that was an antisemitic attack, obviously,” Trump says, during a Christmas celebration at the White House. Mikewem (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I couldn't access the ToI article at the time. Describing it as 'terrible' would seem to be less self-evident than 'antisemitic'. Trump tends to deal with simple binary opposite terms anyway (good, bad … beautiful, terrible). Pincrete (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For clarity, we could change it to something to the effect of Trump called it “a terrible […] antisemitic attack”? Is that an improvement? Mikewem (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, because it's entirely predictable and adds nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no citation on the page to support "Islamic terrorist attack" in the first sentence.

When I tried a few days ago, the only secondary source I can find that calls this event an "Islamic terrorist attack" is the video title for a TV news report from Nashville, Tennessee.^[1] The phrase is not used in the video itself; the transcript says the attack was "inspired by Islamic State group".^[2]

The only other sources that call it an "Islamic terrorist attack" are mostly self-published and / or quoting politicians. The quotes are not usually widely reported, e.g. Lyle Shelton (lobbyist), the leader the Family First Party,^[3] and Senator Bridget McKenzie from the National Party of Australia.^[4]

Reliable sources only call it "Islamic" as part of "Islamic State". Other articles that mentioned this attack and "Islamic" use it in other organisation names or attached to something other than the attack, e.g. "Islamic prayer hall".^[5]

Late Night Coffee (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It has been added and removed a few times by a few different editors. I added a ^{[citation needed]} recently and that was deleted (because this page doesn't use footnotes in the top section), so I asked here. That got no response for 5 days, so I requested comments below. Late Night Coffee (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t know that an RfC was called for here, and I don’t know that I feel compelled to weigh in on it. But just popping in to say I do think that the current solution to fully spell out “Islamic State-inspired terrorist attack” reflects exactly what RS say and should hopefully appease all concerns from all parties regarding our presentation of the category of this attack. Mikewem (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to 2025 Bondi Beach shooting has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Defenders by adding the Bondi Lifeguards included in the Bondi 2025 Hanukkah celebration attack should mention defenders including Bondi Lifeguard Rescue. ~2026-23251-16 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. The lifeguards did not confront the attackers. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether to include the nationality/residency status of the accused in the lead has been a perennial edit dispute over the life of this article (removals include , ,, ...). Although inclusion has been more or less a status quo, I think it would be useful to explicitly nail down a consensus on this that we can reference in the box up the top and in edit summaries, particularly since this article is under a WP:1RR restriction due to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The sample text below is from the latest two relevant edits, and should not be considered to restrict wordsmithing:

• Option A: Exclude - eg: "Sajid was shot dead by police; his son Naveed was treated for wounds at a local hospital and survived."
• Option B: Include - eg: "Sajid (an Indian national and Australian permanent resident), was shot dead by police; his son Naveed (an Australian citizen) was treated for wounds at a local hospital and survived."

Previous discussion is here, here and here (early discussion when things were still in confusion is not really relevant). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option B. It is vitally important to know that such a heinous offence was carried out by two people with the same citizenship/residence as the victims, and not by foreign actors. I cannot see any reason why such information would be withheld from the lead. WWGB (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option B is the better option, for the reason given by WWGB. I would even prefer that Sajid's Australian residency be mentioned before his Indian nationality. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option B, with emphasis on "should not be considered to restrict wordsmithing". It should say their nationality or where they are from, but I think it would read more naturally to give their birthplaces, "born in Sydney" and "from Hyderabad, India". The citizenship legality details can go in the body text or an infobox. Saying Naveed was "born in Sydney" or is an "Australian-born citizen" also says more clearly that Naveed is from here and not an immigrant who obtained citizenship later. Late Night Coffee (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Born in Sydney" itself conveys nothing about citizenship. His citizenship followed from his parents' status. "Australian-born citizen" is much more useful. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Option B no issues with its current wording Mikewem (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes (nationality and residence should be in the lead) therefore no problem with either Option B or Late Night Coffee's alternative, which 'reads' slightly mor naturally and clearly IMO.Pincrete (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - If it warrants a mention in the lead (and I am not necessarily agreeing that it does), it should be in the first sentence that mentions the gunmen, not the second. E.g. "... two gunmen, allegedly Sajid Akram (an Indian national and Australian permanent resident) and his son Naveed Akram (an Australian citizen), killed ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello WWGB, it looks to me like the organization of Accused subheadings was correct and useful previously. You made 3 new lvl2 sections here by taking Weapons, IS influence, and Travel to Philippines out of the Accused section. Possssibly Weapons could be taken out of Accused, maybe it could be a sub header under Attack. But it seems undue to me to have them be lvl2s, and it seems like they really do belong under Accused and only under Accused. Is the issue that the Accused section was getting long? Mikewem (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We cannot conflate the accused with any other issues about the incident. We are not here to try the accused, that is the role of the courts. Information about weapons, travel etc belong elsewhere. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I’m thinking move Accused ahead of Investigations and then add all 3 (weapons, IS, Philippines) to Investigations? Mikewem (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

In the section “Criminal proceedings” the penultimate paragraph says: A committal mention is listed for 8 April at the Downing Centre Local Court.

This statement is now significantly out of date and should be updated. Dolphin (t) 22:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

There has been no response after 16 days so I have erased the paragraph. The 8th of April was 6 weeks ago so the information in the paragraph was seriously out of date. Dolphin (t) 11:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

"Injured: 40 (including the accused)" seems to disagree with "Attempted murder (40 counts)"?

Either 41 is NOT "including the accused" or there's one person they shot at without wounding them severely enough to add to the wounded tally. I think it's more likely 40 not including Naveed, because the second possibility seems unlikely?

Can anyone remember how it ended up with "40 (including the accused)" for the wounded in the infobox? I've not edited this for a few weeks and there's no sources in the infobox. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 02:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

See and (you can find these via the Find addition/removal link in Page History). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

So that guy, changed the number but not the note? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 23:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide, I changed it to say the number of chargers. It could possibly be shorter but not "including the accused" unless that's explicit in a sourse? If it just says "40 in hospital' the "victims" bit might be implied? We could just say "40 hospitalised" and leave "including the accused" as ambiguous as it is in the source. We shouldn't add certainty that isn't in the original. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

From your edit summaries "40 including accused" seems to not be consistent in all the sources? There's probably some errors and miscommunication in early reports? e.g. police said victims and journalists misunderstood the number as total, or police were avoiding saying where accused was for security, or possibly number 41 died very soon after arrival. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In summary you linked, it does say 2 died. Revision as of 08:48, 25 December 2025 "It was 42 injured but 2 died so 40 injured as per NSW police media release, change Infobox-back to 40 injured; Victims-back to 40 injured." Naveed was in a prison hospital then, he's unlikely to be in a count unless they explicitly say he is? "Bondi Beach gunman, Naveed Akram, has been moved to Goulburn Supermax prison in the New South Wales Southern Tablelands. The ABC understands the alleged murderer was moved earlier on Monday from Sydney's Long Bay jail hospital where he has been for the past fortnight after being shot by police." Mon 5 January 2026. ABC News. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 01:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a bit indirect, but seems to show that 40 doesn't include Naveed, "Police allege 55 people were shot during the attack, including 15 fatally..." SBS News 16 February 2026 because if they only count 15 dead, then the 40 others also doesn't include gunmen shot by police. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, read the link, Sky News Australia (WP:SKYNEWSAU) is not the same as Sky News (WP:SKYNEWSUK). They have different ownership, different bias, and different ratings on the perennial sources list. They're not interchangeable and calling a Sky News Australia source just "Sky News" is misleading. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 19:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the error is in the source? TOI and AJN credited "Sky News". Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Is a news outlet a reliable source for the text of interviews conducted by that same news outlet? I’d like to remove the two bsn tags in 2025 Bondi Beach shooting#Wounded. Mikewem (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

If you mean Sky News Australia? Then: No.

WP:SKYNEWSAU "In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable."

An unreliable source with a history of disinformation and a right-wing skew is not a reliable source for a quote from a centre-left politician.

If the information you are citing is the words of the interview guest then it would be preferable to use the original interview, it will probably be available on YouTube. However, I don't think a direct quote from a politician belongs in a factual section, political quotes are only appropriate as reactions. The direct quote is a primary source, and closer to WP:OR than the other things flagged as such. To tell the story about what actually happened, you need to cite a reliable secondary source, Late Night Coffee (ping me) 11:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The current length of the section is also undue for the sources available. It should be shorter and it should cite reliable secondary sources. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 12:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mikewem, You had it backwards: 14:04, 25 May 2026 Mikewem "...She did not tell the story to nine news, they just reported info that was out there" Nine News didn't report "info that was out there" they had the story 20 days before Sky News Australia reported it. I got confused because everyone was crediting Sky News Australia. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

RE:18:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC) "The two Sky News Australia links each include video of the interviews. Is your claim that Sky News has published doctored video?" It's not a "doctored video" but that doesn't mean it is a reliable source. Sky AU is a well known disreputable and biased news source. Weeks after the event was first reported by Nine or someone else, Sky dug up an old story, and did their own interview. Have you watched it? Interviews can be distorted in other ways, such as using leading questions, e.g. "do you think (answer they want to report)?" Then they quote the answer to that without the question. That is a simplified example, but leading questions are a tactic that Sky and similar unreliable sources use somewhat routinely. We can say that Sky were quoted by other media, but we can't describe Sky's reports (or sources citing only Sky) as facts. The woman obviously had a very stressful experience, but to include it on the page we need to cite reliable secondary sources, because Sky can't be trusted to report it accurately or respectfully, and sourcing names from government documents (.gov.au) violates multiple guidelines. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

SNA is yellow on RSP, if you think it should be red, then take it to WP:RSN.

Please respond to my thread on your talk page about your three (!) 1RR vios on this article today. Mikewem (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In the same section, the victim's full name has been on the page for a long time, but probably shouldn't be. WP:AVOIDVICTIM "Presumption in favor [sic] of privacy ... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions". That's for their own biography page, but the same conditions apply here. Someone wanting their real name used by their treating physicians does not indicate that they want their name on the internet, particularly given the more recent interview uses only their first name. There are very few sources that use their full name and the story can be told clearly enough without quoting their name. I think the only wounded victims we should name are Al-Ahmed and Ostrovsky, who were both named in numerous sources in multiple languages. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 12:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Shikhverg went to the media voluntarily and disclosed her identity.. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't trust them to describe the story as she wanted it told, and WP:SKYNEWSAU indicates my lack of trust in that source is justified. But also, that link is from 27 January 2026. The first source The source from February uses only her first name. They then give Ahmed al-Ahmed's name in full. By itself that could be because they are speaking to her directly, and surnames are uncommon to use for that in Australian culture, but the written version also uses only her first name. The WP:BLP guidelines suggest we should presume privacy in ambiguous cases, and points out that this rule particularly applies to victims of other people. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 13:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I got the dates mixed up, because the other sources all credited Sky but Nine actually had it first. Her full name showing up in later sources makes slightly more sense, but still needs better sources to justify using it. Wikipedia doesn't generally name people unless their name is used very widely in sources. The story is about her name, but it can be told clearly enough without using her name. Her name is not notable or necessary to tell the story. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 16:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This has quickly become a WP:WALLOFTEXT in response to a very straightforward question, which means I’m not inclined to read it all. The two Sky News Australia links each include video of the interviews. Is your claim that Sky News has published doctored video?

This thread solely concerns the two bsn tags, if there’s something else to discuss, then please do it in a different thread. Mikewem (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to summarise after sleep. "This thread solely concerns the two bsn tags". I made a separate section when I first wrote it, but I re-joined them because it's related to your sources. You can break it up again if you want. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 21:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of WP:SYNTH has been added to this section. The fixation on the timeline and source comparison that’s now in our text is not WP:DUE and should be removed. Mikewem (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Stating that the 7 January comes before the 27th is just a statement of the facts. Whereas your edit summary claiming the the source from 7th copied it from the source on the 27th is... I don't know what that is? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If you have something negative to say about an edit summary of mine, you’ll have to provide a diff so that I know what you’re talking about. Mikewem (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I already linked it, and quoted your edit summary, above: 16:27, 27 May 2026 (UTC), in the part you refused to read. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 21:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

That edit summary should’ve said she did not solely, or exclusively, tell the story to nine news. Your fixation on this paragraph is unconstructive. Mikewem (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph was long overdue for some careful attention. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "did not solely, or exclusively, tell the story to nine news" is a plausible typo from "they just reported info that was out there" but if it is, can you actually find any other sources before Sky News Australia? As far as I can tell, Nine are the only source who had it before Sky. Then after Sky it gets reported overseas, but they all quote Sky. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 00:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

00:28, 30 May 2026 ... Mitch Ames  ..276,315 bytes −3,186  →Aftermath: ... "the book destruction was not a consequence of the shooting"

@Mitch Ames, But the section is called "Aftermath", not "consequences"?

Destruction of indigenous Australian children's books
In April 2026, University of Queensland Press (UQP) announced its decision to destroy all 5000 printed copies of Bila: A River Cycle – a picture book by Wiradjuri poet Jazz Money – before the release date, due to accusations that an unrelated essay by the illustrator, Matt Chun, was antisemitic.^[1][2] Chun's self-published essay was a criticism of Australis's response to the Bondi Beach shooting.^[3] UQP cancelled the book because the essay, which was anti-Zionist, met their newly-adopted definition of antisemitism,^[4] despite therebeing being no indication that the book was antisemitic.^[5][6] The Sydney Morning Herald reported Money's reaction:^[4]

“...this is a very gentle kid’s book written by an Aboriginal mum about my country and about my family’s country ... If that can be cancelled under this definition, this weaponised definition, then what would stop anything more political or more urgent from being destroyed?" — Jazz Money, 2026.^[4]

Or do you think UQP had some other reason? Or is that paragraph unclear? Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Late Night Coffee (ping me) 03:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

There are just too many degrees of separation between the two events. The Australian response to the attack was an "aftermath". An essay about the response? Maybe. A consequence of the essay about the response? No, it's just too indirect.

Other editors are (as always) invited to opine. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I put the book in "aftermath" because it was a destructive action, not just a statement like the things in "reactions". I noticed the following paragraph is confusing. To clarify: the author of the essay is the illustrator of the book (Matt Chun), the author of the book (Jazz Money) has no connection to the essay.

It is somewhat indirect but the indirectness itself is part of the aftermath. Destroying 5000 books due to an indirect connection to something controversial wouldn't have happened without the shooting. Things like that were happening in the United States and Germany but not in Australia until now. During the Gaza war there was some political or racist exclusion of Arab Australian authors from speaking events, but the destruction of a collaborative work is unusual and extreme. Before the attack, writing an essay like that would have attracted criticism, and Matt Chun might have had speaking gigs cancelled, or he might have been fired, but I don't think thousands of copies of an already printed collaborative work – that didn't contain the offensive content – would have been destroyed. They started work on the book in 2022, and the illustrator had openly expressed intensely anti-zionist views for years, then the book got destroyed as part of the terror caused by the attack. Chun was criticised by right wing media and pro-Israel activists before the shooting, but those attacks weren't taken seriously until after. Late Night Coffee (ping me) 04:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)