Talk:Longest recorded sniper kills

longest confirmed kill is impossible in this page
The longest confirmed kill on this page of 9,540 m (10,433 yd) is physically impossible and longer than others by 3 fold I have never seen this number any were else and believe the number to be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.252.79 (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism that was corrected shortly after. - w o lf  22:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of SOFREP
I've never run across someone who thought that SOFREP was a WP:RS. Why do you think it is? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen it used on here often enough, I don't know how many other instances you may have removed, but it's currently cited ≈160 articles. But that said, I had asked about it myself at RSN way back in 2013, and the only response I got back was that it was generally reliable. I didn't get any reponses stating it wasn't and, it seems that it hasn't been brought up there again since. But what is it about this site that makes it non-RS for you?
 * Also, I'd prefer to keep this ref. Not sure why you initially removed it, the particular link was expired, (now updated with archived link) but NYDN is a reliable source, per RSP. - w o lf  23:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ~160 is nothing, we've had patently unreliable sources used on close to 10k before. SOFREP for me is 20% orthodox anti-communist theory, 20% solid journalism and 60% churnalism. For example this piece which not only manages to name the KMT as the ruling party of Taiwan (aka orthodox anti-communist theory trumping reality) but also appears to have built the article from a series of wikipedia pages (I noticed because I wrote much of the wikipedia pages in question). I think you're getting NYDN (which is GA but not used in the article) with NYP (which is generally unreliable and is used on the page). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually on review its me who is getting the two confused... I removed NYDN not NYP despite saying NYP in the edit summary. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, no harm done. As for sofrep, you could try bringing it to RSN again. Meanwhile, I have to ask; with all this cleaning up your doing, removing unreliable sources and the content they're attached to... are you checking to see if any reliable sourcing can be found before removing the content? Or at the very least, leaving the content in place and tagging it 'cite needed', so see if someone else will find sourcing? - w o lf  22:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do but with BLP we don't have the option of leaving the content in place and tagging it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

31 December 2022
Hi! What's the problem with this article change? I personally know guys, who know the sniper - he is from SOF AFU, not National Guard, and rifle was another, and so on... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longest_recorded_sniper_kills&oldid=prev&diff=1130694375 Maeront (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is the source, which itself is not clear as to wether it's considered a reliable source or not, appears to rely solely on a Facebook post, which is a self-published source and is not considered reliable. The same post makes claims that the current world record shot was faked by commanders, and that that claim was made by the Canadian sniper himself, "Wali" who made the news when he joined the Ukrainian Foreign Legion. The problem is that "Wali" is not the sniper who made the record shot, that was another, unnamed sniper, who served with JTF2 jn Iraq, while "Wali" served with the R22R in Afghanistan. Another problem is the "Ukrainian Special Forces officer, Alex Tumanov" waited for almost a month and half to post this "breaking news" on his FB account. Yet another problem is the claim that this is either the world record, or second best record if the current Canadian record is discounted, but in both cases, the current second place record, held by an Australian from the 2nd Cdo Rgmt is overlooked. That's too many errors, and such is often the case with self-published sources.


 * Yet another problem is your claim about "knowing a guy that knows a guy that knows the guy..." cannot be used on WP. It's considered original research, which is not permitted, and you should also give our conflict of interest guideline a read as well. If you want to re-add this information, you need to find a reliable source, preferrably a secondary source, and also confirm you do not have a conflict.


 * Lastly, your post was moved from my talk page to here as such posts belong on the article talk page, not on user talk pages. Also, I posted a "welcome" template on your user talk page. I strongly encourage you to read through it, and all the links it contains (as well as all the links in this reply) as they contain a good deal of useful information for new users. - w o lf  14:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unnamed JTF2 sniper
According to this, the name of the world's farthest sniper kill by a JTF2 Operator is either Dallas Alexander or another unknown shooter as it was an simultaneous shot during the 10 s flight time. Maybe there is a 3rd party confirming this.

2A02:8388:8CBA:CF80:8C29:CAA4:C8E8:D271 (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Youtube videos are not usually reliable sources, and even if this one is, it doesn't confirm who actually made the kill shot, so the entry remains unknown/name withheld. - w o lf  16:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a news report from a reliable source that makes it clear that Dallas Alexander was not the sniper that made the longest shot.
 * So, while he was apparently on the team at the time, we can only add the name of the guy that actually pulled the trigger on the killshot, not the shooter next to him that shot at the same time and missed, or his spotter, or the guy on security, or the helo pilot that did their insertion, etc., etc. It has to be the guy that actually took the shot, and that has to be confirmed by reliable sourcing. - w o lf  17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So, while he was apparently on the team at the time, we can only add the name of the guy that actually pulled the trigger on the killshot, not the shooter next to him that shot at the same time and missed, or his spotter, or the guy on security, or the helo pilot that did their insertion, etc., etc. It has to be the guy that actually took the shot, and that has to be confirmed by reliable sourcing. - w o lf  17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you consider comfirmation of distance
curiosity what do you consider proof of confirmed distance Sandman nz (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See our verification policy and our sourcing guidelines. - w o lf  05:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

New longest confirmed kill - Ukrainian SBU Sniper
News articles Here, Here , Here , and Here claim that a Ukrainian SBU sniper hit a 3,800 meter / 2.36 mile shot against a Russian soldier with a "Volodar Obriyu" rifle, a home-built rifle from Ukraine.

Could be worth adding a new addition if additional sources come up confirming it. 173.185.117.65 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Pro-Ukrainian media are now trumpeting the shooter's identity. Should it be added/a new article created?Amyzex (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding a name here would depend on the sourcing. Hopefully it's more solid than the sourcing used to add this entry in the first place. As for creating an article about them, it's not likely per WP:1E, but give WP:N, WP:BIO and H:YFA a read anyway, and go from there. - w o lf  06:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does The Wall Street Journal meet your standards of "solid"? TylerBurden (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't be obnoxious. The source was initally described as "pro-Ukrainian media... trumpeting the shooter's identity". Hoping that sourcing for this is more "solid" than a blog and a messenger post, is not at all unreasonable. So with that said, hopefully the WSJ does a better job of supporting their report. - w o lf  05:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk about unecessarily personalizing a discussion and assuming bad faith, it was genuine question given that you have been arguing against WP:RS here. TylerBurden (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, if anything, I've been arguing for reliable sourcing. It's the constant, and needless, off-topic thread derails that I've been arguing against. But that said, I think we're done here. Have a nice day. - w o lf  05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you have resorted to calling me a dick, I think you're the one derailing discussion. That is not fostering productive discussion, that's attacking me personally because I dared ask you a question. TylerBurden (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is fake. Maybe we should have a "claimed" section, this is obviously and unconfirmed kill. Elias Ziad (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what you've been doing this entire time... "fostering [a] productive discussion"? Anyway, I didn't call you a duck, I asked that you not be obnoxious. But it appears I've upset you, so please accept my apology. And with that, now we're done. Again, have a nice Day. - w o lf  08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So why did you link to a page saying "don't a dick"? It's not about me being upset, it's about Wikipedia policy. Perhaps WP:NPA would be worth a read. No one is forcing you to respond, so if you are done defending your takes here, then by all means have a nice day you too. TylerBurden (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oy... why ask questions if you don't want a response? I tried disengaging here, more than once, and even tried to leave on a positive note. Yet you keep posting again and again... and you're not even discussing the entry that this was originally about. I don't know if this is a must-have-last-word kind of thing, but as far as that entry is concerned, it's still there. And while others continue to contest it's validity, I've let it go. As far as any remarks here that may have upset you, I apologized. But you just keep draaaaging this along. Take the win already, time to move on. - w o lf  06:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'd love a response in fact. What makes you think I don't? Then again perhaps responding to that question would cause you to double down on a WP:NPA, so I can see why you'd rather not answer. I don't care about the last word or whatever other pettiness, and like I said it's not about being upset, so I accept your apology. If there is nothing else to discuss about the content then we indeed seem to be done, so happy holidays to you. TylerBurden (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Don't be WP:DICK|obnoxious" is what you wrote, despite there not actually being anything there anymore and despite that page saying "Please avoid using this title in discussions, per meta:Talk:Don't be a jerk." so yes you called them a dick and no it wasn't cool. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm... perhaps agree to disagree here. But I bid you to have a nice day as well. - w o lf  06:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing issues
I've removed this entry once already it was only supported by a blog, but it has since been re-added with addiition "sources" attached. There is however, issues with these sources. This one and this one are blogs. And, of the three attached refs in the re-added content, (currently in the article as of this post), this one and this one both refer to the source of their info as same linked "local media", which is a post on the Telegram Messenger app (an sps), while this one states they "". Much, if not all, the info regarding this "kill" is from the Ukraine military (likely the propaganda arm), based on a video of the supposed kill. The footage is blurry, purportedly showing a 9-second rifle shot and then an apparent Russian soldier dropping to the ground. Whether that soldier was comfirmed killed, or even hit, as well as how the distance from the sniper to that soldier was marked, is not made clear. I'm sure that more info will be forthcoming in the next days and weeks, but unless there is reliable sourcing provided that clearly confirms this kill and the range, I don't believe the current entry (Ukrainian 3,800m) can remain. (jmho) - w o lf  09:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * this isn't an enough remarkable newthis isn't an enough remarkable news for big and trusted mass media platforms to post it on their resources, so this information probably won't ever have a wiki-trusted source.
 * "...could not independently verify this information nor the video, and has reached out to the SBU and Russia's defense ministry for additional comment.":
 * 1. The video and information to it was already given by SBU to RBK-Ukraine, a big ukrainian news site;
 * 2. Reading sentece "Asking Russia's defense ministry to get more information" was funny, did Newseek really expect them to reveal their loss
 * The shoot itself was 8 seconds because the bullet itself flied to its target about 4-5 seconds, and also the audio track probably rushes for a few seconds. The shot itself wasn't a miss, we can see a soldier in the right falling to the ground and then two other soldier hide in trenches. The distance is set by sensors that any modern sniper unit includes - C0000000000kie (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, the shot has been reported on by several RS such as The Independent and Yahoo News. It seems odd to oppose this while ignoring that the previous Canadian record is also based on the Canadian military as a source. Why is the Canadian military a WP:RS but the Ukrainian "likely propaganda"? TylerBurden (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While the Yahoo ref was alreasy addressed, the Independent is a newly cited source. Just the same, when reviewing all sources, (as we should, not all sources, even ones commonly held as reliable, are always just that), we at times run into problems as we've encountered here, with the sources already noted, and with the Independent as well, there are issues with confirmation. I don't recall that being an issue with the previously added entry for the Canadian record, but if you now want to challenge the veracity of that, it should be done separately. Meanwhile, are there any reliable sources, that state the claim for the Ukrainian record is verified? That is what we should be looking for here. - w o lf  04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to challenge the validity of the Canadian record, which also had a video released of it years after it took place. We can wait for a bit and see if more information comes out, but when you get to a point where not one but several established reliable sources start reporting on something I don't think it's fair to dismiss it as propaganda, just like I would think it unfair to dismiss the Canadian record as propaganda just because its source is at the end of the day the Canadian military. TylerBurden (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You say you don't think it's necessary to challenge the Canadian (Cdn) entry, but then go on to basically attach a caveat that if the Ukrainian (Ukr) entry is "challenged", then the Cdn one should be as well. Even though this is content that covers a similar event, does not mean they should be treated the same, in that if the Ukr entry is challenged, then Cdn entry must be as well. This is about the Ukr entry touting a 3,800m record. While some of the sources are generally accepted as reliable, we still have the option, if not obligation, to evaluate the sources being used. In the case of the Ukr/3,800m entry, I looked closer at the sources and found issues that effect the veracity of that claim; two refs are blogs and were removed, and of the 3 refs currently attached, both Yahoo and the Kiev Ind. rely on a Messenger post, and Newsweek openly states they could not verify the claim. That leaves the Ind.uk ref, first mentioned in your post above, that cites a Tweet that is a re-posting that Messenger post. As of this reply, the entry and those 3 refs are still there. I'm simply pointing out the issues with the currently attached refs, in hopes that better, more solid sourcing can be found. Now with that said, you brought up the Cdn entry. Up until now, and afaik, there has not been any concerns raised regarding the Cdn entry. If however, you wish to now challenge the sourcing for that entry, that is your right, but you should do it because you believe there are problems with the Cdn entry's refs alone, and not to just make point about any other entry, Ukr or otherwise. (imo) - sorry about the length - w o lf  05:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are applying this much scrutiny to the Ukrainian record, then it should be obligatory to treat the other records the same. You seem to think that SOFREP is a reliable source, but you question these references that are actually specifically listed as reliable on WP:RS/P. The video source included in the Independent reference actually specifically mentions that it was a "sniper kill", so there you go, there was analysis by an independent source. I believe there are similar references for the Canadian, so it would be better to improve the referencing if needed than add unhelpful tags. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So then with this logic, the section should be called "Claimed shots" not "confirmed kills" Elias Ziad (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

We're kinda going in circles here. I'm addressing the Ukrainian 3800m entry. When it was first added, I saw it was only supported by a blog. When it was re-added, I again noticed a questionable source, (unless you think an sps post on a messenger app is considered reliable. I didn't see that on RS/P). Two of the three attached refs refer to that same msgr post, both calling it a "local source". The third attached ref, though generally considered reliable, speficially states they have not confirmed the report. So, after evaluating the sources, it appears that the entry is poorly supported. I didn't remove it, I simply tagged the sources and started a discussion... something we're supposed to do. Every time you reply, you are somewhat defensive, and keep trying to turn this into a 'Ukraine vs Canada' dispute... as if I've somehow been equally defensive about the Cdn entry and it's sources, (which I haven't) because you seem to think I hold some ownership over the Cdn entry (which I don't). If you want to challenge the Cdn entry and it's refs, go ahead. Just do it in a new, separate thread. This thread is about the Ukrainian entry and I'm just looking for a collegial discussion about the current sources attached to that entry. Thank you - w o lf  06:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have already mentioned several times that I have no desire to "challenge" the Canadian record, I just find your takes inconsistent when looking at the history here. WP:OWN is also something I have not mentioned, so not really sure what you're talking about, you're evidently rather active on the article but I don't see any claim of ownership over content. I see your point, but how many sources do we need? Looking at the other two most recent examples, the British one has two news articles supporting it, and the Canadian also has two that I am able to access (I may be missing something but I get nothing from clicking "Murphy 2017") TylerBurden (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Annnd you're still talking about anything but the issues with the sources attached to the 3,800m Ukr entry. But take heart, I see has suddenly appearred and removed the sofrep refs you took issue with. It would be interesting to see what would happen if he turned his attention to sources in the 3,800m Ukr entry. Or if you did... -  w o lf  04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per your request I took a look, let me know if you have any questions. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, what did "look at"? Thanks - w o lf  05:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As requested I looked at the "the 3,800m Ukr entry." Thats the one, right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ukranian sniper named
Wall Street Journal dated Tuesday 5th December 2023 has the 3,800m shooter named on their front page. David Crayford &#9742;  17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * here is the WSJ link. don't know if it helps
 * it names the sniper : Vyacheslav Kovalskiy
 * https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukrainian-sniper-breaks-cover-to-claim-world-record-hit-of-more-than-2-miles-2b1c820e 2A01:CB1C:E4E:4400:5CBC:B8EC:A15A:6CE1 (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why he is NOT named in the paragraph about him? We should change it to "...Viacheslav Kovalskyi, a special agent with the Security Service of Ukraine...".
 * Especially since we have his name in the chart directly below. 2600:100F:A020:1848:CFF:AAFA:49F4:F3CD (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
change "In November 2023, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an unnamed special agent with the Security Service of Ukraine" to "In November 2023, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Vyacheslav Kovalskiy, a special agent with the Security Service of Ukraine" 2A01:CB1C:E4E:4400:5CBC:B8EC:A15A:6CE1 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ You need to include a reliable source with your request. - w o lf  05:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Change the section to "claimed kills" instead of "confirmed kills" otherwise, remove Ukraine's claim
The video showing the shot could have been anything else, we see troops dropping to the ground, but it could be because the shot in question missed and hit near them, or one of them were wounded by the shot in question, not just because they were "killed." We obviously should not believe such reports. if Russian source were to come out and claimed a Russian sniper killed a Ukrainian from 4km away, you guys would probably not believe it either. Thats why there should be a section called "Claimed kills" and not "confirmed kills" because even a lot of the other shots in the section doesn't have enough proof itself to be considered "confirmed." Elias Ziad (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Soviet record
With the purging of the record of the longest kill by a Soviet sniper, every country represented on this list is now an ally of the United States except possibly South Africa, and of course the Confederate States of America sniper who apparently held the record a little over a decade. Respectfully, our snipers being better is not the reason we have won most of our wars. Moral disapproval of the Soviet Union is not a good reason to remove a record of one of their feats of arms. Amyzex (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you able to locate a reliable source for the Soviet feat? It doesn't appear to have been removed due to moral disapproval, it looks like it was removed due to a lack of verification. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Soviet ruzzians lied about WWII like nobody else. They literally, until end of USSR in 1991, lied about secret part of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
 * They made up tale about "heroic" Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen.
 * Nobody believes they propaganda and lies. Slavic Positron Cannon (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)