Talk:Longest recorded sniper kills/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

minnor edit added

"long range" to first part as it read like sniping started in nam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.99.161 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

M82/107 Sniper Weapon System

Did Gilliland use a M82/107 Sniper rifle? The source claims that he just used a, "M24 rifle, Staff Sgt Jim Gilliland, leader of Shadow sniper team" -- Esemono (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Simo Häyhä

In this article Simo Häyhä is credited with 542 confirmed kills, but in his own article he's only credit with 505 (542 if unconfirmed kills are included). Should this article be changed to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.3.20 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was coming here to say. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I used this source that says 542 and I used that one because I was replacing this questionable link. Most sources I've seen use a conservative, "around 500" estimate while acknowledging that the tally may be as high as 800.[1] -- Esemono (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Distance units

Is it worth having yards alongside metres when they are such close measurements? If no-one objects I may change yards to miles. Zarcadia (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Projectiles on the .50BMG Round

In the shooter/distance grid, under Rob Furlong and the other Canadian Sniper, it says that they used Hornady A-Max Projectiles in the .50cal .... Using these would be breaking the Geneva Convention, as only Solid or Full Metal Jacket Projectiles are allowed. The Hornady A-Max is a tipped projectile, similar to a soft point in a way, but made out of a different material. This should be changed to the real projectile used, most likely a 750gr FMJ-BT or a 637gr TCCI. 122.59.169.224 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

could be a misconseption by the creator or it could be true, many SF units are using Mk262 rounds recently which are a 77 grain, high performance, open tip/hollow point round. i supposed if some units have admited to using 262's then its possable for the canadians to be using A-max's (they would deffinatly be better quality than the issued ammo :P ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.240.205 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Hathcock Weapon

According to the Hathcock article, Hathcock used an M-14 service with custom scope mount for his record, not the weapon listed in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.3.196 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

his actual weapon was a M2 Browning fitted with a high power scope seen here [url]http://www.jfkballistics.com/images/craigroberts/50bmg914.jpg[/url] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.240.205 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Hathcock's distance

In one spot in the article, it quotes 2,286 yds, and in another it mentions 2,286 m. Not sure which is correct. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation?

This is misleading, if not completely wrong. Although the term 'confirmed' is thrown around loosely in these sniper related articles, the truth is that there is virtually never any confirmation at all - at least in any generally accepted sense. Just a few of the points that apply: - In virtually none of these cases has the victim's corpse been recovered - due to the range of the shot. If the corpse isn't recovered and confirmed, the central point of the claim - the kill - in not at all confirmed. Review the list of 'kills' listed in this article and see which ones had verification of the corpse. - In virtually none of these cases was the supposed hit witnessed by anyone besides the sniper and his spotter. No one else in the unit had optics comparable to those of the sniper team. In some cases, even the spotter's optics were not as good as the sniper's. In some cases (such as Hathcock's) even his spotter did not witness it, merely an unnamed bystander; so the shot was an entirely unsubstantiated claim. In no other military field is a part of the weapon's crew considered a valid source of confirmation. (It's also revealing that in virtually none of these cases has the spotter gone on record to attest to the distance of the shot.) - No modern armed force conducts formailized sniper kill review boards. None. So there is no official review or endorsement of the claimed shots. This is important. Consider aerial combat kill review boards. History shows that aviators - often equipped with gun cameras - grossly over-estimated their kill claims; even when subjected to kill review boards, examination of post-war enemy files shows that the kill review boards still resulted in higly exaggerated claims. Since there is absolutely NO formailized oversight of sniper kills, you can imagine how unreliable these claims are. - How many of the armed forces involved in this article maintain records attesting to "best shots"? Answer: none. In other words, not a single one of these armed forces has gone on record to officially substantiate these claims. None. That should tell you something. The best you have is PR events where they let the sniper meet the press to tell his story. But the armies involved to not explicitly back these claims. Even in Hathcock's case - a man lionized by the USMC - there is absolutely no contemporary documentation or confirmation of his record-breaking shot. So many of the supposed points of 'confirmation' turn out to be empty (remember Furlong's mention in dispatches and US medal - neither of which, it turned out, even mentioned his supposed shot). - Finally determining record distances is virtually meaningless when the methods of measuring those distances are so radically different. Take Hathcock's case. His shot's distance was determined by a map estimate. Yeah, he looked at a map, looked at the terrain, and estimated where on the map it would be. He could easily have been off by 10-15%. See the problem? His **estimated** distance is just 8.6% shorter than Harrison's **measured** distance. Which means Hathcock quite possibly holds the record. Point being, the effort to bestow rank ordered honors based on uncertain measurement techniques is fruitless and silly.

The general topic of sniper feats is so full of fan-boy adulation that no logic can be applied or proof demanded. Even questioning the lack of proof draws outrage (watch and see). It is absurd. Just saying a shot is confirmed does not mean it was indeed confirmed. Just citing somebody else's unsubstantiated claim it was confirmed does not make it true, either. And a PR event featuring no one more senior than a corporal is worse than useless. If a shot is confirmed, state clearly what was the method of confirmation, what was the review process by which the claim was examined, and cite the specific military document that officially recorded the results of the review. If you can't do any of those three, there simply is no confirmation. So we're just tossing about fan-boy mythology. 67.187.136.140 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that the articles are based on Verifiability, not the truth. It is verified by reliable sources (Newspaper accounts of the events not the actual shot) there for it is deserving of entry into an article. -- Esemono (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this article pretty much sums it up. The ranging issues you cite are no longer an issue. GPS. Game over. There is no scale reading error or unpredictable standard deviation, no guesstimation or anything as gross as a +/-10_15% band. What you see is what you get, +/- 3ft to be precise.Shots ranged via GPS, confirmed by the spotter, with a more powerful optic than the snipers scope and confirmed corpses as the friendlies overran the position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.112.84 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, regarding Craig Harrison the GPS readings of the shots were noted by American observers who contacted the US press, subsequently the MOD independently confirmed it.Twobells (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Update, I think this section is just an excuse to add unverified kills to the article, since GPS came along with confirmation both by the military and independent observers game over for vague claims. Twobells (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise along comes an attempt to add unsubstantiated kills to a recorded kills article, citing a newspaper that doesn't even make that claim nor cover the story. Twobells (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed kills 1,250 m (1,367 yd) or greater kills

Does an unknown Australian sniper count, since the reference article mentions the simultaneous firing of 2 shots without being able to confirm which of the 2 involved snipers actually struck the targeted person at 2,815 m (3,079 yd)?

lol, no not at all, the military confirmation doesn't exist nor could the author check the story, just a mockery, removed. Twobells (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Craig Harrison

Craig Harrison is in The Blues and Royals (RHG/D) not The Life Guards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.214.90.84 (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What is the longest recorded kill?

The top row of the table is 2475m.

But the paragraph above the table says, "The current record is held by an unknown Australian soldier from Delta Company, 2nd Commando Regiment with a GPS confirmed shot at 2,815 m (3,079 yd)."

So which is it?

I mean, this is the one question the article should answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzimba (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The current holder of the recorded confirmed kills is Craig Harrison @ 2475m, as I stated above this is not the article for unconfirmed rumours subsequently the entry has been removed. Twobells (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick Ranstad

In the Sniper article there is this:

United States Army Spc. Nick Ranstad while deployed to Nuristan Province, Afghanistan with the 173rd Airborne, 1-91st Airborne Cavalry "Hatchet" Recon Platoon took out a Taliban target that he and his spotter had been stalking from 2,100 m (2,297 yd). Ranstad's shot is now confirmed as a US Army record for a sniper kill in Afghanistan.[67] Ranstad then provided suppressive fire until air support could move in to eliminate a second target.

But its sourced to a little paper (2000 circulation) the Battle Lake Review Tamke, Jon A. (29 July 2008) "Servicemen" Battle Lake Review (Battle Lake, MN). Doing a google search just brings up forums who have copied the Wikipedia article. Although I did find this. Anyone have anymore info on this guy? You'd thing breaking the American distance record would account for a little more press. -- Esemono (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, another article that recounts the story without any way of official confirmation of the kill, but does show a picture of a recently promoted Staff Sgt Ranstead, who went on to tour the M107 factory and met some of the people who helped build his actual rifle. So, now the NRA, Tennessee General Assembly, National Geographic Channel, and the Barret company appear to be support the story behind this +2000m kill. -- AndreQ (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC) .

Owen Bristow

Sources cited don't talk about Bristow so removing entry for now. If you can find RS references you can put this back in

Sniper	Date	Distance	Weapon	Ammunition	Nationality	Military Unit	Conflict	References
Corporal Owen Bristow	March 2003	1,410 m (1,542 yd)	Accuracy International L96A1	7.62x51mm NATO	United Kingdom	Parachute Regiment	Iraq War

2815m shot

What about this entry? -- Esemono (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That one should probably be called a figment of a journalists imagination. - Galloglass 14:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm and idiot, I misread the article I thought this was a new sniper -- Esemono (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sniper	Date	Distance	Weapon	Ammunition	Nationality	Military Unit	Conflict	References
Corporal Scott Smith	2012	2,815 m (3,079 yd)	Barrett M82A1	50 calibre bullets	Australia	Delta Company of 2 Commando Regiment	War in Afghanistan	[2]

Verification Of Recorded Kills

Please discuss disagreements here on the talk page rather than edit warring on the main page. Thank you - Galloglass 10:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No edit warring involved, I deleted an entry that is not recorded or independently verified as pertains to best Wiki practice, this article is called the 'longest recorded sniper kills' not some authors utterly vague unverified claim he cannot factually corroborate let alone independently which is then mentioned in one sentence by an Australian website who won't verify such a claim. Twobells (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it fake cites? The article clearly states GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m ... The previous world record achieved by British Corporal Craig Harrison occurred also in Helmand in November 2009. Firing from a distance of 2475m -- Esemono (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form). Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources

I am sorry but how many times must I write it, it is NOT officially recorded or independently verified as all the other shot's were and this article if for the the longest recorded sniper kills, I am sure many other snipers have made amazing shots but unless it gets recorded it doesn't belong here. No sniper is identified, it is completely unverified and contains absolutely no facts which has no place on Wikipedia until it has official verification, not some rumour or hearsay otherwise everyone could make such boasts. I am afraid this is just some writer suggesting it may have happened, he readily admits no-one will verify even one fact. I think the writer was getting his leg pulled or more likely as a marketing pull for his new book in which he claims this. For the record I read that piece and can tell you that the British never discuss such operations due to security concerns however the Americans released Harrison's remarkable shot as they had recorded the event. If you check the timeline it was the American press that published the details first, it was only later that the MOD confirmed it. If an author know's his trade he'd recognise that the British are very reticent discussing operations and not as that piece implies; that they go around boasting about it. Also why did you remove all the cites associated with Harrison including the Guinness World Record certificate? Twobells (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The only question really seems to be how we define an officially recorded/verified event. The Telegraph is a reputable newspaper. The article in question is not a book review, it is an article based upon the author's latest book, but this is standard journalist practice worldwide. The author is a highly respected, award winning journalist. The publishers of the book are a reputable publishing house. The source seems indisputably reliable.

I am sorry but you still don't quite understand, the newspaper has made no such claim nor covered the story. The recorded verification is made by the military HQ of the sniper involved from GPS, in Craig Harrison's case a neutral third-party was the one to call the shot, the US Army who were in the same operation and eventually the British Ministry Of Defence after US newspapers published the facts. It was then further verified by The Guinness Book Of World Records who independently verified it. Look, hearsay does not make it a recorded kill, a recorded kill has to be made by the military and a neutral uninvolved third party, newspapers then publish the story once it has become verified which we can then cite, all that the Australian Telegraph has done is let an author who heard through hearsay that a shot was made, the newspaper has made no such claim, another problem is no-one associated with the army, the unit, the government or indeed anyone at all will come forward to corroborate the hearsay least of all the snipers involved.Twobells (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So the real question is: Can someone tell me which organisation officially records or independently verifies such records? Such a question is easily answered in the case of sporting records because the sports all have official international bodies that maintain the records. Is there a similar organisation that validates records for sniper kills? And if there isn't, how can editors determine whether a shot has been officially recorded or independently verified beyond references in reliable sources? Once we resolve whether such an objective standard exists, then this dispute will be resolved. If such a standard exists, then either we can verify that this shot meets the standard or we can't. And if such a standard doesn't exist, then the shot gets included because it is verifiable. I am skeptical of its veracity, but the policy is verifiability, not truth, and the author and the journal are both reliable.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Guinness World Book of Records, however there has been no verification of this story, that is the whole point, the author has been honest, he has been unable to make even the most rudimentary checks and admits it is only hearsay, however I have written to the Australian Army for comment, hopefully that will resolve the issue. Twobells (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

While that is great initiative it against wiki policy under the Wikipedia's no original research clause. -- Esemono (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The website has made no such claim only the author who himself readily admits cannot be verified by any means, they are also going to publish a piece explaining that which will be subsequently posted here and that does not invoke PR.Twobells (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

If a reliable source indicates that something is fact, then it is not our job to second guess the reliable source (as long as it meets the requirements at WP:RS, which this source seems to. Our job as Wikipedia Editors is to report what experts have said in encyclopedia format. That means that we give a summary of what reliable secondary sources state. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC) However, the source hasn't made such a claim, nor covered a story it cannot verify, the writer even admits he couldn't check it... And for the record he cannot produce a single person to corroborate this story and what secondary source? There is none, there isn't even a first source. Twobells (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC) As stated many times 1) the source meets the requirements at WP:RS 2) The WP:RS claims that "GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m." [3] -- Esemono (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I am sorry but the source newspaper makes no such claim nor has ever done so. Twobells (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Read it again, it does. I've provided the quote several times.-- Esemono (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC) No, I am sorry but you misunderstand, the newspaper makes no such claim, rather the author does in a sentence for a forthcoming book, he readily admits he cannot verify the rumour in any way, the author also word for word subscribes a statement made by Mr Tom Irwin of Accuracy International in 2009 to a unknown Australian Army soldier in 2012. Twobells (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Not only does the Australian paper qualify as a good and reliable source, it is not our job to second guess it. Even the Great Soviet Encyclopedia qualifies as a reliable source, and it is still filled with propaganda. Tabloids, even, can be reliable sources when combined with others, or when no better sourcing can be found. Uninvolved third parties are generally all reliable sources unless for some reason they can be explicitly proven not to be. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC) This is exactly why Wikipedia is getting a bad name, Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. ref. the newspaper has made no such claim nor suggest it ever happened, they don't even cover the story as such as there is no story, there is no independent verification nor a record of the shot. The author admits freely that it is hearsay and that he couldn't even check it, this article is about recorded kills not hearsay, there is no factual evidence to base this claim on. the Australian Telegraph themselves make no such claim, there has been no verification this ever happened by anyone in the military or neutral uninvolved third parties, I repeat there is no record of this ever happening, if it is is recorded it will be added immediately. To resolve this I have written using my credentials to the Australian Army for verification or a denial, finally third opinion doesn't not make for adding an unrecorded hearsay shot in this article , it is just an opinion, please wait until I receive word back from the Australian Army then we can move forward. Twobells (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) The source (Daily Telegraph) which as been determined to RS claims that "GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m." [4] end of case. It is wiki policy to leave it at that. As per wiki policy verifiability, not truth. The Reliable source cites the claim and that's it, as ruled by the third opinion. -- Esemono (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) I am sorry but I have written to the Daily Telegraph website and they refuse to verify the claim and will be publishing that fact shortly. (as they are publishing the fact that they cannot verify that doesn't break personal research). I am also waiting to hear from the Australian Army for verification asking them to either verify or deny and publish said results, so far no-one will make any such claim. This is an article for the most recorded kills, this has not nor ever has been recorded. Twobells (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) If you actually contacted the Telegraph, which I doubt, then you've violated Wikipedia's no original research clause. As stated many times 1) the source meets the requirements at WP:RS 2) The WP:RS claims that "GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m." [5] -- Esemono (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC) The editor Esemono is doing anything he can to attempt to include a unconfirmed, unrecorded record on this page and it is wrong, the newspaper refuses to confirm any such event ever took place and states that the authors comments are his own. The 'source' did no secondary research, no confirmation by anyone involved at all, it is a non-event that an editor is attempting to legitimize using the argument it was on a website, farcical. Subsequently I have removed it until such a time it can be confirmed. In closing this editor is a defence researcher with a background in journalism who did indeed contact the website that published the author of a forthcoming book's story, they refuse to authenticate it, I am more than happy to submit my correspondence to the Wiki Admin at any time. Twobells (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

WP:NOR is a content policy, not a talk page guideline.  What this means is that Wikipedia does not publish original research on article pages, but talk pages are not articles.  This policy does not prevent editors from contacting reliable publishers and arranging for articles with their original research that will become WP:RS once published.  It is also not a conflict with content policy to contact a publisher in order to bring evidence to a talk page.  The determination of WP:DUE is an editorial decision.  WP:Editing policy states, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". The essay WP:Inaccuracy continues, "To this end, potential inaccuracy is a consideration for each and every source brought to an article."  As Jimbo puts it, we are not transcription monkeys.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

RS difficult

Some of these guys have had more kills in a day than the Red Baron in his life. They don't talk to many outside their group for various reasons. 'Reported kills' may have to 'break all rules' and just trust them to verify each other and possibly have input on this article. List of world records in canoeing seems to be edited by the actual record holders. See the talk page and minor edit wars there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In sniping with GPS those days are long gone, the problem for our Australian friends is that there has been no verification by any means, it is all far too vague to be taken seriously especially so when this is the longest recorded kills wiki article. An editor seems to think that a totally vague claim from an author about his book is a 'source', the problem is that the 'source' breaks RS Identifying reliable sources basically the newspaper concerned won't even verify this author's claim, there is no third-party, no confirmation of any sort, no neutral confirmation just a utterly vague one-sentence claim, the entry completely breaks RS, Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. and the fact is the 'source' has used the vaguest possible terms to describe this claim, it is so unreliable as to beggar belief. However, If they want to go ahead and create a new wiki page on unrecorded, unverified kills then they are free to do so.Twobells (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we put a disputed/unconfirmed type tag on it and add a footnote? It is technically 'recorded' in a reliable source being the Telegraph.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding a footnote where TwoBells concerns can be added. -- Esemono (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If I can add my 2 pence worth to this debate. I see the unnamed sniper has been added. I don't see a problem with this in the short term but come one year down the road and we still have no name then we start to strain the articles credibility. At that point we need to consider a review if we have no further sources to base the anon sniper on. - Galloglass 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Utter Farce

Editors do realize what an utter farce entering unknown unverified kills in this article is right? This is the article for confirmed kills not the article for unconfirmed shots by unknown shooters using unknown ammunition some place. Twobells (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand you passion, however we have been through this in excruciating detail above. We have no fewer than four third-opinion editors all agreeing the shot should be added, and that it is 'confirmed' and 'verified', whatever those terms may mean. Since only one editor disagrees, we have consensus at this stage. If you wish to take this to further arbitration, please do so. Until then please do mot revert this material. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you read up you will find he is not the only editor questioning the addition of an anonymous unidentified individual based on very little evidence. In my own case however I am willing to withhold any objections providing you can come up with additional sources. This has not happened yet but it needs to happen soon as there can only be a finite amount of time for there to be no name added. If it does not appear soon then I will be pushing for this to be reviewed. So please supply some reliable sources soon as the present situation is deeply unsatisfactory. Thank you - Galloglass 16:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem waiting for the year you suggested. That seems to be the consensus -- Esemono (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll note no one replied and as no additional sources that I requested have been forthcoming I think a 3 month timetable is more appropriate which will give another 2 months for further details to be added. If these are not added by then I will also be looking to a removal as the statues quo is not sustainable in the long run. - Galloglass 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous, as a defence researcher with a background in journalism I contacted the Australian Sydney Telegraph who refuse to validate this rumour, the sentence is in an article by an author who in his own words admits it is no more than a rumour. I then contacted the Australian Department Of Defence who categorically deny any such incident took place. For the final time this is the article for the longest recorded sniper kills not the longest rumoured sniper kills. I am more than happy to submit my correspondence over this issue with the Wiki Admin if required.Twobells (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Twobells I do sympathise with your point of view as the one source this is based on seems thin indeed. I think its fair though to give additional time for a more reliable source with more acceptable information to be found. Should these not be found then I'm quite happy to see the removal as by then it will have been 6 months since theTelegraph made its initial claim, which by that point if no more official source is forthcoming would clearly indicate that this claim is unsupported and would fully justify any removal. - Galloglass 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the claim since no further, and more reliable, source has appeared. This article is for verified/confirmed kills, not rumoured kills. Thomas.W (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And I reinstated it, as per the lengthy discussion above. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thereby making a total joke out of this article. WP is an encyclopaedia that requires reliable sources for everything, not a fanboy forum that accepts anything. Thomas.W (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark another more reliable source needs to be forthcoming soon for your position to be sustainable as its now been 6 months and I have been unable to find any further information at all on this unnamed claim from any other than the original rather vague article, which I would have thought would have emerged after 6 months for something like this, given that the tour of duty of the unnamed individuals will now be over. - Galloglass 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Btw Mark when you reverted Thomas.W's edit you stated there was a consensus on this subject. Thats a little naughty of you as you know thats not correct to say the least. - Galloglass 09:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark you've had 6 months now to come up with a substantive source to support this claim. I've also looked for any source but none has been forthcoming. Indeed all the evidence from other sources that have come out point to this being a false claim. - Galloglass 10:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

An award winning and highly respected journalist published in a respected newspaper is is a substantive source. Wikipedia policy simply requires that all material is verified by a reliable source which this claim clearly is. When you can tell me which Wikipedia policy justifies removing a relevant statement verified by an award winning journalist, then you can remove it. Until then the statement is verifiable and stays where it is. You may not like it, but Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth, and the claim has been verified by a reliable source.Mark Marathon (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A single passing mention in an article in a newspaper is not enough, especially since the article wasn't explicitly about this claimed record kill. It's as simple as that. And since everyone else here is against your position is untenable. Making this a simple edit war where one editor is trying to force his view on everyone else. Thomas.W (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Mark Marathon, as it currently stands, has made three reverts within 24 hours on this article I issued a three-revert user warning to him, in total accordance with the rules. With Mark Marathon swiftly retaliating by issuing me a warning, even though I only have two reverts. So this is getting more and more ridiculous. Thomas.W (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion regarding unnamed Sniper(s)

Its now been six months since the original rather vague claim was made in the Telegraph regarding this shot. I've been searching for supporting sources in that time to sustain the claim. I've not been able to find any at all. Rather the reverse. All other articles and comments I've found question this claim. So I think as I commented several months ago we need to revisit this and discus it in full with editors stating if they are in favour of removal of the unnamed sniper's or keeping them? My own opinion is that as no reliable source has now been forthcoming is that it should be removed. Simply put, the tour of duty for these unnamed individuals will now be over and had it been correct then something would have leaked out if only to the military press/websites and this has not been the case. - Galloglass 10:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source that something like this would leak out of the military press/websites? Or is your opinion based on your personal original research? -- Esemono (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal research is not a reliable source as reference material on Wikipedia Esmondo and cannot be used or referred to under any circumstances. - Galloglass 05:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So wouldn't that mean that Galloglass's personal research that information about military missions will leak from "military press/websites" cannot be used in this debate? -- Esemono (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you're being a little silly Esemono. You know as well as I do that we need a verfiable source for your unnamed sniper to be added and after 6 months I have not been able to find one. Have you? - Galloglass 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm being serious and no I won't sink down to your level of disrepecting my username. -- Esemono (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You need a reliable source for the claim. Do you have one? - Galloglass 12:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove: Claims that have not been properly verified/confirmed have no place here. Thomas.W (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. A reliable source has confirmed the shot, speculation that it didn't happen is just an opinion. We can only work with what RS provide. -- Esemono (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources must be individually evaluated, and since the claim is based only on a passing mention in a newspaper article about something else, with no mention anywhere else or by anyone else, the "kill" is just a rumour, with no reliable source. Thomas.W (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the single current source is not reliable at all as the article mentions this rumour in passing. As I said several months ago we need a proper source to include this in the main list and none has been forthcoming. I did ask you to look yourself for a proper source Esemono as I'm sure the rest of us have done and it appears, like the rest of us you have drawn a blank too or you would have added it by now. - Galloglass 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a single individual source but it's still one source. It's disingenuous to claim that NO sources have been found, as you're claiming in the present version of the article. I think we should include it in the list as per wikipedia policy but I'm willing to compromise and take it out for the reasons spelled out above. However you shouldn't try and change the facts on the ground. A reliable source has been found you just don't like it. So can we agree on a phrase that covers this. I'm thinking "which if confirmed would have broken the 2,475 m (2,707 yd) held by Craig Harrison,[6], but since the claim has not been confirmed by multiple sources it is not included in the list."-- Esemono (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A passing mention in a newspaper article about something else, and nothing more, is not in any way, shape or form a confirmation of a sniper kill. Meaning that there is not even a single reliable source for the claim. Period. Thomas.W (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• remove there shouldn't even be a mention of the unconfirmed and obviously fake 'record' anywhere on the article, rather such unfounded claims questions the authenticity of the entire article.Twobells (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

2.2km kill in the Congo by a South African Special Forces sniper

Details are not yet available, here is an initial news report - http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/08/29/sa-snipers-wreak-havoc hopefully the exact distance and the type of rifle use will become known soon. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Found a good source that reports the range as 2125m - http://www.africandefence.net/the-fib-goes-to-war/ - now we just need the rifle model. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

From (in Afrikaans) - http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2013-08-30-sa-skutter-skiet-rebel-in-kongo-oor-22-km-dood - Denel_NTW-20 using 14.5x114mm ammo. No name given. He was wounded during later action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

DefenceWeb also confirms the range as 2125 m - http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31736:sandf-mum-about-drc-sniper-super-shot&catid=55:SANDF&Itemid=108 I'm afraid the "general press" are guilty of "optimistic rounding".The DefenceWeb report also says the SANDF spokesperson refused to confirm any details. It looks like this record will never be "officially confirmed" to the satisfaction of the "owners" of this page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Several Reliable Sources in the form of mainstream press as well as specialist defence media have confirmed this incident. However, just because some militaries do not take pleasure in celebrating death by discussing the gory details in public, the owners of this page refuse to accept the reliably sourced information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Far more confirmation exists for the South African claim than the Norwegian claim that is on the WP list IMHO. The Norwegian claim has one author claiming it, no name (or rank even), no source listing an official statement by the Norwegian military is listed Garreth (Garrethe) (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "owner" of this page. I'm not commenting on the Norwegian sniper because I haven't looked at it but the Australian claim was removed because the only source was a loose claim in a single newspaper article. With multiple proper sources I see no problem with adding this South African sniper, just as I wrote in reply to User:Garrethe in this thread on my talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So can I re-add the entry? I will use DefenceWeb article as well as other sources Or should I wait more as I'm not looking to cause any trouble here. Garreth (Garrethe) (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the sources below, see which ones of them look most "authoritative" and then add it, with those sources listed as references (preferably multiple sources). And don't worry about causing trouble here, you're doing just fine. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for participating here Thomas.W, I hereby withdraw my comment about page "ownership". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Had to re add entry due to deletion done by anonymous user 41.208.212.154 Garreth (Garrethe) (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting press article in South Africa claims that: "Along the same line was the South African sniper who shot a rebel in the DRC over a distance of 2,2km. It was also not the longest shot he had on this particular day in August last year and apparently at least four shots of this distance were measured with one reaching 2,4km." Certainly pushing it out there, but until official acknowledgement is received, it can only be hearsay at the moment, some amazing shots apparently made on that day. - http://www.aafonline.co.za/column/erika-gibson-minister-defence-cracking-whip-will-they-jump Garreth (Garrethe) (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Revised edit by anonymous user 196.11.134.77 who added in 5 Special Forces Regiment, there is no official source that has stated whether the user was from 4 or 5 Special Forces Regiment so therefore removed Garreth (Garrethe) (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorting out who said what

Please use the lists below to sort out which sources report which information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

General media sources

• http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/08/29/sa-snipers-wreak-havoc - Gives distance as 2.2km, no mention of rifle type, identifies sniper as a member of the South African Special Forces.
• http://www.dieburger.com/nuus/2013-08-30-sa-skerpskutter-skiet-rebel-oor-die-2-km-ver-dood - Reports range as more than 2km, reports rifle was an NTW-20 in 14.5mm.
• http://www.enca.com/africa/sa-snipers-kill-congo-rebels - confirms the action but doesn't give specific details - this report originated from AFP.
• http://www.volksblad.com/nuus/2013-08-29-sa-skerpskutter-skiet-doodskoot-oor-afstand-van-meer-as-2-km - Identifies rifle type and calibre, has interview with respected journalist Helmoed-Römer Heitman who says was a sniper team, spotter used laser rangefinder for distance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrethe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC) (Note: Heitman is a respected defence analyst, commentator and also the Southern African correspondent for Jane's Information Group. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Specialist defence media

• http://www.africandefence.net/the-fib-goes-to-war/ - Says range was 2125m, does not identify rifle type, confirms sniper was SA Special Forces
• http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31736:sandf-mum-about-drc-sniper-super-shot&catid=55:SANDF&Itemid=108 - Confirms range as 2125m, reports unconfirmed speculation about rifle saying it was an NTW in either 14.5 or 20mm.

Information published here may present a threat to the individual concerned

I have just been contacted by the author of the article in africandefence.net - we are both active on an online forum covering defence matters and he is aware that I am a regular WP editor. He pointed out to me that due to the very small number of current SF members, revealing the sniper's age and rank is sufficient information to identify the individual. As he is still currently deployed such information might present a direct threat to his safety. His age was mentioned only once by a single source in Afrikaans thus making it unlikely to become known to the opposing forces. Revealing the same information here in English is far more accessible to opposing forces involved in the conflict. Thus I think we should remove the mention of the sniper's age and rank. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The alleged rank has been removed, and there is, as far as I can see, no mention of his age in the article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

And unverified speculation removed from talk page. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be a problem as Wikipedia only uses reliable sources. Editors can't do their own research so there is no way that the sniper's age could be in the article unless it was already exposed in publicly available sources. If the age is in reliable sources that can be read by anyone then it's public information. That said it's a moot point because the age was never disclosed anyway. -- Esemono (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

His age was disclosed here and the source that originally mentioned it was listed here. The point is that a single mention in a newspaper in Afrikaans cannot possibly be as accessibile to the opposing forces as a mention here would be. The odds of any member of M23 being capable of reading Afrikaans is essentially zero. The English Wikipedia on the other hand is the 5th most read website in existence. We are required to recognise that our writing can result in real world harm and take steps to minimise it. See WP:IRL, it contains good advice. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Afrikaans is so secret that no one in the world can translate it, not even Google Translate. I appreciate confidential information but publicly available, is publicly available. -- Esemono (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not only about being able to translate the information once found, it's about coming across the information in the first place. In any event, I'm not sure that matters, the rank and age have been reported by only that single source, not by any of the others who reported on this event. That should make it ineligible for inclusion here. Darren (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, where would we add the age anyway? When I first set up this table I didn't see any reason to add the sniper's age or rank for that matter. Are you proposing we add an age column? -- Esemono (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unknown" snipers

Two of the entries in the list concern snipers whose identities have never been revealed in publically accessible records. I think "unknown" is not quite the best word to use and thus I want to propose it be changed to either "unidentified" or "unnamed". Opinions please. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, either 'unidentified' or 'unnamed' would work better. Darren (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this RELEVANT?

Basically, this is the only "longest recorded [insert any word here]" article on all of Wikipedia. What makes something like sniper kills so deserving of a unique, Guinness Book, style of article? Why is measuring the distance of lead projectiles, which consequently struck humans (to death), deserving not of "list", but "article" status?

Here are some more practical "longest recorded" things that normal viewers might actually take interest in.

• The longest recorded discus / javelin throw
• The longest recorded baseball / football throw
• The longest recorded soccer kick
• The longest recorded field goal
• The longest recorded arrow shot
• The longest recorded bullet fired (which didn’t kill anything)*
• The longest recorded snot globule blown from an aardvark’s eye cavity at a photo of a snow crab on a Tuesday evening

Please consider converting this page into a LIST for now. I'm considering to vouch this article for deletion, on my main account, on the basis of irrelevance. Until more ARTICLES appear which record "the longest", "the shortest", "fastest", blah blah, I'll favor against this sort of article in general.

On a more personal note, but an ancillary one, I find this article offensive as it glorifies the act of killing by creating a kind of morbid scoreboard for it. The Wikipedia community does not exactly tend to do make complete articles about these things (i.e. most people massacred in a day). Furthermore, the biography of the morbid scoreboard is filled only with American and Common Wealth soldier’s names. For example, there’s not a single record from the USSR, Nazi Germany, Ottoman Empire, China, Japan, Korea, or even non-sovereign agents such as assassins or criminals. In the very least, change this article’s name immediately to “The Longest Recorded Sniper Kills by Americans or Common Wealth Soldiers”

--Sage Veritas (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Relevance has never been a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of content, neither is offensiveness. The content of this article is properly sourced so it passes Notability - which is ultimately all that matters. As for why the list is dominated by Americans, there are two reasons - the current generation of extreme range rifles are widely used by American armed forces and secondly the American armed forces have seen more combat than any other country in recent times. The technology for making such long range hits with anything approaching regularity has only existed for the last decade or two, no Ottoman, Nazi or Soviet sniper ever had such rifles - the two exceptions listed can be regarded as "freak" events. Nobody is stopping you from creating articles for any of the other "longest" shots/kicks/throws you've mentioned. BTW I'm pretty sure the Norwegians would be quite surprised to learn they are part of the Commonwealth. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

On Notability and Americanization of the article

Fair enough- 91.6% of the morbid scoreboard is American or Commonwealth, and 100% are Western.

Relevance is certainly a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of content. We're confusing relevance and notability- for the purposes of WP semantics, relevance has to do with "Individual Article Content" and notability has to do with "encyclopedic suitability" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance_of_content).

In response to your 1st reason: you claim that this article passes the Notability Test because there are many reliable sources sited within the article, which is true. However, The Notability Test also says that the article must be "worthy of notice". For example, if I wanted to make an article about how many times the letter "P" appears in the New York Times, I would have tens of thousands of reliable sources from the NYT to cite. Unfortunately, my article would speedily be deleted because the frequency of "P" in the NYT is NOT worthy of notice, nor was it the NYT's intention to discuss the frequency of the letter "P". I posit that recording "Long Range Sniper Kills by Westerners" was also not the intended topic of discussion by the sources cited, nor is it particularly worthy of notice beyond a few violently patriotic American men.

In response to your 2nd reason, you state that high tech "extreme range rifles", and "American armed forces seen more combat... in recent times" are the reason for why the list is dominated by Americans. Please feel free to explain why there's a Civil War soldier on the list from 1874 who is clocked at 1406m, as well as 2x modern soldiers clocked at even lesser range (1380m and 1250m respectively). Is it even deniable that German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or Turk soldiers surpassed one of these records at some time in history? In all practicality, it's totally undeniable. Those non-Western records have been discounted.

Again, I recommend changing the name (include "Westerners") and converting this article into a list. Here's an example of a very noteworthy topic, which doesn't even have it's own article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_basketball_players_who_have_scored_100_points_in_a_single_game

--Sage Veritas (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the article then don't read it. Wikipedia isn't about being politically correct, so you feeling offended by it is totally irrelevant. If for some reason you feel that you can't stay away then at least present some arguments for why the article should not exist, arguments other than you feeling offended by it, instead of asking/demanding that others present arguments for why it should exist. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas.W. - If you ordered the following phrase "if you don't like the article, then don't read it" for every similar situation to this one, then no Wikipedia article would ever face criticism... I'm not only offended by the morbidity of this article, but I also think it's: 1.) Hilariously Western-centric 2.) Un-noteworthy. --Sage Veritas (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason it might appear to be western-centric is that there are no reports of non-western sniper kills long enough to make the list. But the subject as such isn't western-centric since there are snipers in virtually every army, and every war, around the world. As for your opinion about it being un-noteworthy, see what I wrote above about you feeling offended by it being totally irrelevant. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Sage Veritas, if you can find verifiable sources of non-Western long-distance combat shots that could become part of this table, I and the other editors would appreciate seeing them and having them added. The nature of events like these means that they are outliers, occurring only when a relatively rare set of circumstances align, and even when they do occur the news seldom emerges except much later and without much detail. Nor is the purpose of this list to glorify anything, it is to catalogue facts of historical interest in the same way most other Wikipedia articles do. As such the objective remains continuous improvement in scope and accuracy. Darren (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Remarks added for Notability, Unbalanced, POV-check, Contradict

• Notability: It was not the intention of the multiple sources cited in the bibliography to rank long distance kills.

• Contradict: This article is about a series of data that is intended for ranking- therefore it should be a list, and NOT an article. Compare with "Lists of most common surnames", "List of most popular websites", "List of the longest-running Broadway shows". The all-encompassing title of the article "longest confirmed... [by anybody, anywhere in the world]" is inconsistent with the article's content because it cites only Westerners, namely from the USA and commonwealth.

• Unbalanced & POV: For being 100% Western centric (91.6% USA and commonwealth). It is undeniable that German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, or Turk soldiers surpassed many of these records at some point in history. Those non-Western records have been utterly discounted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage Veritas (talk • contribs) .

Sage Veritas Reading up on this page above these nominations, quite a lot of these points have been addressed. Would you not be better continuing the discussion with the other contributors and also look for additional information regarding non-western snipers thats been suggested to you above? The article itself is clearly an 'Article' rather than a list, the given list appears to be simply a visual representation of the given information, granted there does need to be some expansion within the body or the article itself - Galloglass 04:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer that an admin review the article on the basis of the 3x points above. This article should be changed to either include non-western snipers, or to modify the name to "longest recorded sniper kills by US Americans, and Commonwealth". Lastly, and most importantly, it should be converted into a list. It's absurd that this is an article, but others like "tallest buildings in the world" or "World Heritage Sites in Africa" are lists. What makes a list worthy of article status?--Sage Veritas (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy to keep out non-American snipers. I think everyone would be thrilled to add more entries into the table. Is there anyone who can speak Russian, Turkish or other lingual resources so we can add in other snipers? -- Esemono (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tags as unjustified. Sage Veritas' adding the tags was clearly motivated by personal distaste for the subject as the supposed issues have already been refuted as groundless, long before the tagging was even done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Before you comment any further on "personal distaste"- please address my 3x objective comments above. Those are the grounds in which I've posted the tags. --Sage Veritas (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Stupid pacifist. Stop being offended. Hate pacifists and hate political correctness.68.198.20.98 (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of the article

Please whoever is censoring and erasing content in the article stop. Twice now I have had to revert a mass delete event when there was absolutely no discussion on the Talk page. The paragraph in question is already listed in a separate section outside of the table and has references with a reliable source. Please stop your edit war or I will report you. -- Esemono (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to make changes to articles and this has been a very dubious addition from the start. Its pretty clear now that this particular shot did not happen so it does need to go from the article until proper evidence does turn up. - Galloglass 13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unverified material doesn't belong in the article, period, which is why it was removed. Per Wikipedia's rules it's now up to Esemono (see WP's rules about burden of proof) to prove beyond doubt, with reliable and verifiable sources, that the claims about a long distance shot by an Australian sniper are true, before re-adding it. Thomas.W ^talk 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that there is an officially sanctioned public source for the Australian claim (Wahlert & Linwood, 2014), I presume all those who want to remove it will remain silent? If you look at the references for the UK claim, they're all newspapers anyway - all of which are likely to have had the same original source. The published source for the Australian claim lists place, time, weapon, ammunition, scope, observer's scopes - a lot of info from people who are definitely plugged into the Australian Army sniper community.

3rd Opinion request

Greetings. Esemono had recently requested a third opinion on this debate. However, according to the instructions on that project page, significant discussion needs to have occurred on the talk before such a request is made. I am currently seeing only two posts here, which is far too early, so I am declining this request for now. I would suggest that the editors involved attempt to solve the issue here, and if you are still at a deadlock following such a discussion, you are welcome to post once again. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: It's not a deadlock, it's Esemono against everyone else here. They want to readd content that has been removed for being both unverified and described as "highly unlikely to have happened" by an expert in the field, but have no support for it. Thomas.W ^talk 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Esemono is at it again, he keeps reverting deleted unverified entries, the entry he keeps trying to introduce has had more than long enough to source citations, enough's enough. Esemono, we have been very patient with you but if you carry on reverting and adding the same unverified citations you'll be reported and blocked. Twobells (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think all the other contributors to this page have been more than patient with Esemono over this particular issue, giving him TWO years to come up with a legitimate reference to support his contention. This has not happened so the unsupported content does in the end need to go. - Galloglass 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering why the Australian sniper team was removed. I remember when it was reported 2 years ago it was said by media unlike United States military and British military the Australian military does not confirm sniper kills. Is this why its gone no official source? Makes sense.68.198.20.98 (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite the reason. The SA Sniper entry is an example. That was not initially confirmed by official sources, but there were a number of media reports of the incident, and the information that was initially publicly available was probable. Later sources then emerged to verify this. The Australian one was not the same. One report. BoonDock (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Now the Australian one's been further detailed in a book by a pair of retired Australian Army Lt Cols, complete with date/time/location, unit, equipment, and other details. Is that enough for you, and if not, why not - given that if you look at the four references cited for the Harrison shooting are all newspapers which very clearly have the same original source. If the Australian Army refuses to officially corroborate it, does that mean you will never believe it? As to the shot itself, not saying it wasn't aided by a lot of luck - but that goes for all shots at that kind of distance.

By all means feel free to start a new discussion to see if a new consensus can be arrived at. - Galloglass 08:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Can we at least get rid of morbid and distasteful succession boxes such as in e.g. Craig Harrison (sniper)? Shooting people is a part of warfare, not a sport, so "achievements" in this department should not be listed in a "Records" section of a succession box, and succession boxes shouldn't be used to string together "record breakers". GregorB (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you on the right page? I don't see any "succession boxes" -- Esemono (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Craig Harrison (sniper) and other "record breakers", as I clearly noted above. GregorB (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as morbid at all BoonDock (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting people with a sniper rifle is not a sport in which records are supposed to be kept. "Distasteful" and "offensive" are perhaps better words. GregorB (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

You may find these recorded kills "Distasteful" and "Offensive" but they did happen, are encyclopedic content and are well documented. Nothing within the content of the article suggests shooting people is a sport. You appear to be reading your own pre-conceptions about the subject matter into the article rather than whats actually there. Also as Esemono points out there are no succession boxes on the page. - Galloglass

I did not say they did not happen or that they should not be described here. Also, I never said anything about the actual article content - my only problem is with the succession boxes, for reasons I've described. I'm bringing up the issue here because this is a some sort of "main" article, and there is no point in discussing this separately for each biography that is involved. GregorB (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)