Talk:Abdorrasul Zarrin

Claim of 700 kills
This is a very exceptional claim, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Read Identifying reliable sources (history) to know which kind of sources should be used for military history. So no matter how many sources such as Fars News Agency or IRIB you add, there would be no difference if you cannot find something like say Osprey Publishing. Pahlevun (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See List of Iranian flying aces as an example of articles using reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No. this isn't very big claim,

List of snipers this is list of snipers about 6 person killed +400 person.

number shot all sniper, they say or they frinds, any group don't check snipers when they shoting. all of them is claim.

in about this number and snipers in wiki i think just Simo Häyhä has it. (becuase he killed all of them in a place and red army agree)

these numbers never can be real check.

just If you add better source in all these pages it's ok.

iranian calim and better source toghether is wrong. just one of them.M.Nadian (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, it is exceptional to say that someone holds the record for confirmed kills with a sniper rifle. And you have to provide a reliable source for it. Pahlevun (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? In Identifying reliable sources (history) wrote that when the sources are not good, news agencies can be used.

In my opinion, either a better source is not needed or it should be added to all sniper articles.

If you want a better source, you have to delete the Iranian.M.Nadian (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The number 2000 is not impossible Simo Häyhä killed 500 person in five days.

rad army have snipers by +500 number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Nadian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you just said, per WP:HISTRS historical scholarship is generally not journalism and opinion pieces by non-scholars. I don't care if it is possible or not in your opinion, you have provide reliable sources for what you add. Pahlevun (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

''This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement.''WP:HISTRS

I acssept these aren't very good but when we haven't better ref can be used. M.Nadian (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. WP:RSOPINION M.Nadian (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited are reliable enough for such a claim, nor renowned WP:NEWORG sources. Pahlevun (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

No. These sources have sufficient credibility for this issue.

I say add better source but whitout iranian. they have enough reliable for it.M.Nadian (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of personal opinion. I will only consent if you can get them accepted at WP:RSN. Pahlevun (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is very time consuming and I'm very busy.

After the remove Iranians, the article has no particular problem. I agreed to be at the top of the article (better source) What is your problem now ?! I might ask someone to do this, but it is very unlikely he do this. M.Nadian (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I ask you to do is to adhere to the policies and guidelines. Pahlevun (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)