This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
In the Sniper article there is this:
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) .
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 | [1] [2] |
What about this entry? -- Esemono ( talk) 13:01, 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] |
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
|
Response to third opinion request: |
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)
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)
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)
And I reinstated it, as per the lengthy discussion above. Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:55, 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)
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)
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)
Please use the lists below to sort out which sources report which information. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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. /info/en/?search=List_of_basketball_players_who_have_scored_100_points_in_a_single_game
-- Sage Veritas ( talk) 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage Veritas ( talk • contribs) .
Stupid pacifist. Stop being offended. Hate pacifists and hate political correctness. 68.198.20.98 ( talk) 05:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)?
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)
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)
In the Sniper article there is this:
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) .
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 | [1] [2] |
What about this entry? -- Esemono ( talk) 13:01, 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] |
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
|
Response to third opinion request: |
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)
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)
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)
And I reinstated it, as per the lengthy discussion above. Mark Marathon ( talk) 08:55, 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)
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)
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)
Please use the lists below to sort out which sources report which information. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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. /info/en/?search=List_of_basketball_players_who_have_scored_100_points_in_a_single_game
-- Sage Veritas ( talk) 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage Veritas ( talk • contribs) .
Stupid pacifist. Stop being offended. Hate pacifists and hate political correctness. 68.198.20.98 ( talk) 05:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)