Talk:Longest recorded sniper kills/Archive 2

Should the current record be mentioned in the lead?
There's ben a lot of to-and-fro editing of the mention of the current record in the lead. I think mentioning it there is acceptable and even desirable, who agrees or disagrees? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems silly to mention it in the header with an archaic measurement system, then the history section and then again in the table. The only reason it's there in the first place was someone vandalized the page with info about that guy who got sued by Jesse Ventura-- Esemono (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really care tbh, It just now looks rather foolish saying the same thing briefly in the intro section and more fully and probably more appropriately in the history section. Your call. -  Gallo glass  21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is in fact exactly the purpose of the WP:LEAD of all WP articles - to summarise the entire article. An article lead is not actually supposed to contain anything that is not also discussed later in the article body. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about long distance sniper kills rather than Harrison.... -  Gallo glass  21:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Australian Claim - What Constitutes Proof
Has the bar for accepting this particular claim been raised higher than that required of other records? The four references for the Harrison shot are newspaper articles, all of which read very much as if they have the same primary source. The Australian claim is (now) detailed in a published work sponsored by or produced in association with the Australian Army History Unit, written by two retired Lt Cols, one of whom reintroduced sniping instruction to the Australian Army in the 1970s, and which cites as primary sources discussions with serving members. Obviously the claim is harmed in some people's view by not being officially acknowledged by the Army itself, and by the initial single 'hearsay' newspaper article - but quite apart from operational security, the Australian Army has clearly made its stance known on releasing such information. Does that stance mean that a shot by an Australian sniper will never again be accepted,  or to put it another way - what level of proof would be required for this to be accepted?

Since there doesn't appear to be a bibliography section for the talk page,  and my entry in the article bibliography has been deleted (again) - here it is: p192 - "One Shot Kills - A History of Australian Army Sniping",  by Glenn Wahlert & Russell Linwood; Big Sky Publications in association with the Australian Army History Unit; ISBN 9781922132659. To deny the claim now is tantamount to accusing the authors of either not adequately researching claims made to them, or wilful collusion.


 * The main question I have is what's the source of the authors claim for the kill? Do they have a reference for this or are they basing this on the rather dubious 2012 article? Regards -  Gallo glass  11:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that the book uses the 2012 article? Or does the book uses confidential army sources?-- Esemono (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The book doesn't reference Chris Masters' interview or the Daily Telegraph at all in its bibliography or list of primary sources. What it has for Selected Primary Sources->Post-Vietnam Period is ″Interviews with retired and current Army snipers, not all identified either due to their request or for reasons of operational security.″ So once again, it more or less comes down to the bug-bear of lack of official acknowledgement - at the very least I believe the shot deserves a mention in the article, perhaps a section after the official list.


 * The book can't be based on the 2012 article as the information given is considerably more detailed, particularly down to the date/time/location/altitude given - it also uses 'Recently released metadata', by which I think it means the equipment listed (down to the type of 'scopes the observers used). Further, absent this particular controversy, there's no reason I can see that you would regard the 2012 article as rather dubious  - apart from Chris Masters (writer)' reputation as an investigative journalist, it reads at least as well as any of the four Harrison articles, with the exception that it doesn't quote the sniper himself. I'll have to try to get hold of Chris Masters' book, see if there's any further information there. 60.225.169.113 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear then. The entry should be added into the article. -- Esemono (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

French training shot
The latest addition to the list is a French sniper who shot an amazing shot in controlled situation. Should this be added to a separate table? No question it was a great shot but a little different that hitting a moving target in a live war torn environment. -- Esemono (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the shot does deserve a mention but the article is not about target/sport shooting so I don't really think it should be in the main list. -  Gallo glass  23:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yea no! It's longest sniper kills. A controlled environment, peace time, non combat shot does not count. It should be removed immediately or you will have a bunch of range shots carefully planned and shot on days with no winds!
 * What if we made a seperate table like this?

The records yes but just by pure luck.
They dont mention two of the long shots took 16 rounds and 9 rounds? 2500 yards thats 28 inches per click.--A12bc34be5 (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Plunket
Shouldn't Thomas Plunket be included? In 1809 he shot a French general and his aide-de-camp at extreme range for the time - supposedly about 600m but I think this is disputed by some.Catsmeat (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't the cut off "Confirmed kills 1250 m"? -- Esemono (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mised that. OK, fair enough. Catsmeat (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The list is growing rather long
The table currently has eighteen entries. To keep it to a reasonable length perhaps we could consider increasing the "minimum qualifying range" to 1,500m? That would eliminate the current bottom six. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty reasonable to me. The list is by no means or expected to be exhaustive. TVGarfield (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A reasonable length would be 25 entries so we have a way to go -- Esemono (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Additional Cites
Request assistance; admin needed to add additional cite:

http://nr.news-republic.com/Web/ArticleWeb.aspx?regionid=1&articleid=102019506&source=digest&tagid=-52&tagname=Moods

Thanks in advance.Habatchii (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Repeated additions of the same unsupported content
Earler this month new user "" added mention of a "British (Special Forces) Sergeant Henry Catlin" and his pre-1991 records, including number of kills, distances and weaponry used. There was no source attached to support this addition and it was reverted. Since then, 3 different IP addresses, (see #1, #2 & #3), all belonging to the same ISP and the same city, have attempted to add the same unsupported content. I did a cursory search on Google for this "Sgt. Henry Catlin" but found no mention of him. This is not surprising, whether he really exists or not, info on SF guys in difficult to find, especially from days before the internet. If anyone has any means or resources to look this guy up and confirm that both he and his records exist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, it seems this user(s) is going to continue trying to re-add this same info without any refs. Thanks. - the WOLF  child  16:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC) - (pinging  and )

Broken list view in android Wikipedia app
Hi, as of 21 days ago I already pointed this out but it got deleted immediately by thewolfchild. The list looks fine on my pc and when using a browser on android. When using Wikipedia app it just displays raw code instead of a table. Tables in other articles function normally, so there has to be something with this table that is not readable with the Wikipedia app. I don't know where else to point this out, so I hope it doesn't get deleted again. 176.11.170.233 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC) (new comments go to the bottom of the page, and please sign your comments thanks)
 * Are you referring to this;


 * "Broken list There is a mess of code instead of a list on the page. I can't fix it, would someone attend to it?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.175.221 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) ...?
 * There aren't any details there, and it reported a problem that didn't appear to exist, and still doesn't. I checked the page via the app while writing this and the list, indeed the whole article, appears as intended. The markup used on this table is used on other tables within other articles, which also appear ok to me via the app, and have had no complaints. Are you having problems with any other articles with tables? Have you tried switching to the 'desktop' mode within the app? Lastly, if this is a technical issue that can't be fixed on this page, which is appears to be, you'll need to file a bug report. (see how to report a bug). And by the way, I replied to you the next day... you forgot to mention that. - wolf  17:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, i never saw your reply to me, the only reaction on your part I have seen is deleting the discussion entry with "thanks for stopping by" with no further questions. I cannot know if this functions when YOU use an app, and finding out that it actually is the app will require me tho king of firing up a browser and checking there. I had that idea after you deleted the original entry, after all, I am not tech support. I get the feeling you would rather I know all the rules, do's and don't's of Wikipedia- alas I do not;I merely found out I could leave a message here and get someone's attention. I have found no other problems with tables, but my today's page displays a picture with a 3-D picture based on a formula and the formula had the same behaviour. Gut feeling the app has problems with { }. I will try out your recommendations,see if anything changes.176.11.119.77 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok... cool. Again, thanks for stopping by. - wolf  06:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

French Guy
Source seems pretty sketchy -- Thats Just Great (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Source was a blog. Entry has been removed. - wolf  06:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Longest (now second-longest)
Back in 2015 or thereabouts there was some talk here - instigated by me, I admit - about a claim made by an Australian journalist about a sniper hit over 2800m. There was no other supporting evidence to be found so the discussion ended with the claim being left out of the main article. An independent published source has now turned up, however the record as it would have been has been overtaken by the astounding 3500m current record.

The details I now have are : at about 0800 on the 2nd April 2012, two Australian two-man sniper teams were operating in the Kajaki district of Helmand Province, Afghanistan. In a command-initiated engagement (as it's called), they were both ordered to fire and a hit was seen on an enemy combatant approx 2815m away. No identification is made of any of the four members involved, nor which one made the shot (if they know themselves).

The equipment used was a Barrett M82 A1 with a Schmidt and Bender PM2 3-12x50 and Woods Reticle; observers using Leupold 12-40x60, ammunition was 12.7mm MP NM140F2 Grade A. Altitude was 1160m with no allowance for wind. 101.164.169.137 (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC) Tom
 * 0800 on the 2nd April 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thats Just Great (talk • contribs) 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

2,815 m has never been confirmed - So much for "confirmed kills"!
Two soldiers fired at once at the same target, the kill couldn't be collated to either of them, hence the Australian Defence Forces never officially confirmed the kill.

"Two marksmen using Barrett M82A1 50 calibre rifles simultaneously fired. The bullets were six seconds in the air. One killed the Taliban commander. It is not known for certain which sniper fired the fatal shot.

While there have been no triumphant press releases, in the tight global Special Forces sniper community the shot is much discussed, because it seems certain to be a world record.

As the bullet yawed through the thin air on a windless morning, GPS aids measured the distance at 2815m. That amounts to 2 1/2 times the length of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The targeted Taliban would not have heard the gunfire.

The previous world record achieved by British Corporal Craig Harrison occurred also in Helmand in November 2009. Firing from a distance of 2475m, Harrison killed two Taliban.

While British, American and Canadian sharpshooters are often celebrated the Australian Defence Force says nothing." https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/taliban-remain-in-fear-of-lethal-strikes-writes-chris-masters/news-story/8829eddc14f8b62cecde4c664d4c0e23

Get the facts straight! Your Wiki is awful. Whenever I cross-check something and come here I always have to read plain BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.152.115 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Your source is from 2012. What is wrong with the article? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sean Quinn/ Jeff Depatie
Do we have a reference for these additions? - Gallo glass  07:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As no references have been forthcoming I've rolled back the edits. Please feel free to re-add but with supporting references this time. - Gallo glass  23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Table of long kills broken
It may just be my device, but the table at the end of the article documenting all long distance kills isn’t displaying correctly, instead it shows the source text. I don’t know how to fix unfortunately. Phoenix51291 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Table appears fine to me on both my mobile and laptop. Perhaps file a report at Village pump (technical) and see if they can help you out. -  wolf  01:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Table is completely broken for me too 94.197.111.183 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks Fine - Table displays correctly on Google chrome -- Thats Just Great (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

confederate sniper kill
I must complain about the kill made by a confederate sniper being depicted as American when he was actually part of a rebellion against America. So can the American flag in the nationality section of his name please be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.230.230 (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Someone removed the incorrect United States flag, but did not replace it with the Confederate flag, I have now done so. (BTW please sign your posts.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has come up before, the "CSA" was never an actual country, just a failed attempt to create one, hence the note attached to the cell. -  wolf  23:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * since january the confederate sniper long range kill has been mistakenly identified by the american flag, and it seems any attempt to fix this has been blocked by the user that changed it in the first place. I believe this is politically motivated in some way, in a petty way to diminish a confederate achievement. It doesn't make sense represent this soldier by the flag he was fighting against. it doesn't make sense to represent this long range kill by the very flag of the soldier that was being killed in that shot. and this isn't consistent at all with the documentation of confederate military elsewhere on this website, imagine using the USA flag on civil war battle summaries for confederate regiments. lastly, the CSA, despite not being internationally recognized, held de facto control over a very large swath of land and governed millions of people for 5 years, with it's own military and flags. It shouldn't be disqualified here, and a soldier that fought for the CSA should be represented by a CSA flag here, it's actually quite simple and that's how it was until it was edited by this user. - 2 September 2021


 * To add to that, I agree but for a different reason. A great disservice is being done to America and what it stands for by marking a racist traitor with the stars and stripes. Thats a desecration right there! Do not honor that white traitor with a proper flag like the American one, he was a traitor and shall be marked as one. I rest my case, as a veteran myself. Signed PFC Williamson, 2 September 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:4600:8f20:6d64:f7db:2380:e3a6 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are refs and note attached explain the flag. -  wolf  02:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * obviously I saw that, I directly referenced what you had said in the note, and this is all you have to say about it now... sad. of course you don't have anything to say, because the edit you made is so backwards to reality that if you talked about it at all or had to elaborate on it, it would be plainly obvious how dumb it is. now, please think about this. is it more accurate to portray a confederate soldier with an american flag, or a confederate flag. you can take your time on this one, apparently it's a head scratcher for someone. 2601:442:4600:8F20:6D64:F7DB:2380:E3A6 (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The flags are for the country the sniper is from. The CSA was never a country, even during the four years it tried to break away and become one.

The column for the flags is "Nationality". The nationality of the sniper before the war was American (US), just as it as was after the war, and despite their efforts, that didn't change during the war. Therefore, the flag, (as it's being used here), doesn't change either.

To add the Confederate flag is factually inaccurate (and the flag that you're trying to add isn't even the correct flag. It's the Battle Flag for the Army of Northern Virginia.) I believe you're looking for, and had the CSA become a recognized country, then then this is the flag that would likely be used here.

Just out of curiosity, let me ask you this; say a group of private militia types with a racist ideology marks off an area of some backwoods somewhere in a US national park, and declare it the new micro-nation of "Hitlerland", for which they adopt the Nazi Swastika as their national flag. There is an ensuing stand-off with US federal agents and the National Guard, during which a "Hitlerlandian" sniper kills a federal agent or Guardsman at a confirmed 2000 meters. Should that kill be entered onto this list? If so, which flag would you propose to be used for the entry? -  wolf  07:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * First, you are factually just plain incorrect about the flag here. No, that wasn't the battle flag of the army of northern virginia being added, that was the stainless banner, the national flag of the CSA in 1864, the moment when the sniper kill occurred; and thats how this table works, seeing as the soviet union is displayed. So, seeing as you cannot tell your flags apart, I think you really don't even know what you're talking about here, and that's just sad knowing someone like you is going around making edits like this, because you just don't know what you're talking about if you can't even tell a civil war flag apart and then try to smugly show me the "correct" one I was trying to use. Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America No, you're just wrong.
 * Second, in your strange example, you say a backwoods microstate. That's a bit different from, at the time the 15th most populous country, 13th by land area, with its own government, currency, postage, navy, etc.
 * Last, this isn't consistent at all with any other articles on this website. If your backwards reality is how it should be, then go edit Stonewall Jacksons place of death to be the US, not the CS. Go edit and remove all mentions of the confederate politicians/generals from being of confederate nationality. Because, according to you, that all needs to be fixed apparently. Or MAYBE, just maybe, you're the one that's wrong and this article has been wrong since January because of your assinine edit and stubbornness to keep it that way. And, so far, you're the ONLY person keeping it that way. I can see on this talk page me and 3 other people that disagree with you. I'm sure if some actual person that knew what they were talking about came in here, it would be fixed. I rarely ever speak up or edit on wikipedia, but in this case what I saw was so backwards it had to be done. This isn't some minor slightly off statistic; this is like saying UP instead of DOWN, like its opposite day. Its just backwards land. I read in a book, about the longest confirmed kill with a muzzle loading weapon by a confederate soldier in the civil war. I went here to look for it on the article, and I really didn't see it at first on the table. You know why? Because when you're displaying the country the soldier was from, I am not looking for an american flag for a confederate soldier! I mean talk about backwards. And again, with your stupid hypothetical, what if an unknown ISIS soldier made a longest kill and it had to be added here? Well, what nationality is he? You don't know, because you don't know where he's from, they had people from all over the world coming to fight for them. only the banner he was fighting for is known. So, I would agree with representing that entry with an ISIS flag. Well, did you know that the CSA had foreign soldiers fighting for them, from many different countries? This CSA soldier that made the kill is unknown, so how would you know anything about him other than this was someone fighting under the banner of the CSA? Now seriously, stop being stubborn on your little edit here to keep the confederate flag off, it just doesn't make sense plain as that. And, as I see that MR williams above there is saying he was a soldier himself and he finds it disrespectful to give a "traitor" the honors of an american flag, because that "traitor" ain't american or whatever. Well, technically the nationality would be Confederate American, and as I have said go edit that out of General E Lee's wikipedia too if you think that's wrong. I mean the strongest point here is how this isn't consistent at all with the portrayal of confederate military anywhere else on this website! You sir are wrong, simply wrong and you don't even know your own flags apart, then try to talk down to me about the flags... that's just sad. 2601:442:4600:8F20:3D62:9619:3EAD:9121 (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, the giant wall of text is really not necessary, especially when it contains personal attacks (which you were already warned about). As for the flag of the CSA, the one I linked to is the one that was used by the CSA for the majority of the war, but it doesn't really matter, because neither flag represents a country or nationality. The USSR was a recognized state for over 70 years. The nationality, or demonym for that state was "Soviet", so I'm not getting your analogy, and apparently you didn't get mine (the gist of which was that, like "Hitlerland", the CSA was never a country). With your "ISIS" terrorist analogy, if the nationality is unknown, then we would just enter... unknown. Perhaps that's what we should enter for this "unknown" CSA sniper (since you pointed it out). Lastly, another issue you were already warned about is edit warring, and using a different IP doesn't absolve you of that, you need to stop. You're removing supported content for your own personal opinion. If we can't agree here, your next step is not to just keep reverting, it's to seek dispute resolution. One possible resolution is to a have a column for flags of the military or group that the sniper was a part of? Maybe? I dunno... anyway, have a nice day -  wolf  21:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * you are the one engaged in an edit war, because according to the page history you've been the one editing that particular detail back from multiple other people besides me, for almost a year now. And, amazingly, you couldn't even apologize for just being plain wrong about the flag of the CSA. You talked down to me, said my edit was putting the wrong flag in, you mixed it up with a different flag that looks different, then you suggested perhaps I meant another flag, and the flag you suggested was wrong. You clearly just don't know what you're talking about. Additionally, you're revision is sloppy. each and every time you've reverted my edit, you've also been removing a detail I've been adding, mentioning that that kill was the longest one using a muzzle loading weapon.
 * I feel like I;m talking to a brick wall with you, and someone else needs to take a look at this and how ridiculous you are being. Displaying a confederate soldier in a data table by the USA AMERICAN FLAG is backwards and assanine, and that's the last thing I have to say about it. 2601:442:4600:8F20:3D62:9619:3EAD:9121 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

“Recce” referred kill
I know it’s technically a small thing, but they are officially known as the South African Special Forces, and individually as a special forces operator. Recce’s is the same as using Green Berets, for the US Army Special Forces. The reference needs more context than simply “Recces”. South African Special Forces (Recce’s) sniper would be ok. Names Chester….Winchester (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the "Sniper" column it states: "Recce’s sniper (name withheld)" and in the "Military unit" column it states: "South African Special Forces Brigade, Joint Operations Division, SANDF" with at note attached that states: "Serving as part of the UN Force Intervention Brigade". As with all the entries where the sniper's name has been withheld or is unknown, it is marked as such with a limited description/brief unit name (sometimes acronym), and linked if possible. (As opposed to named snipers where only their rank is included) Then a few columns over is the full name of the military organization or unit they were a part of. -  wolf  06:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * note: the entry was changed shortly after the previous post from: "Recce’s" to "Special Forces operator", iow though a colloquially known name (as the previous editor noted, "Recce" in South Africa is like "Green Beret" in the US) and is now: "Special Forces operator, just a lengthy, generic and possibly incorrect correct title. I'll leave to others to comment and perhaps look into it later. -  wolf  07:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Chris Kyle SEAL Team
Chris Kyle never served for SEAL Team 5. For his entire career in the SEAL Teams, he served with SEAL Team 3. His longest shot was in 2008 in Sadr City, Iraq while serving as the Leading Petty Officer, (LPO) of a platoon within SEAL Team 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me153970 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed the team number. The rank is his rank at discharge. The time and location don't appear to be an issue. -  wolf  19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Wali the long-range sniper
The Times says that the longest snipe recorded was done by a Canadian that goes by the name of "Wali". One of the highest profile arrivals is “Wali”, a computer scientist from Montreal who was been dubbed the world’s deadliest sniper after his service with the Royal Canadian 22nd Regiment in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, where he reportedly killed as many as 40 people a day — in one case from a record 3,540 metres. However, if you follow the paper trail, this story begins innocuously by a French-language source saying he was a sniper. Then another repeats this story and says he served in the same unit as the JTF-2 person: Wali fought in the same Canadian unit as the sniper with the world’s longest confirmed kill, of 3.5km. Now we have this story that he is the person with the longest shoot on record. The Times may be correct, but we need more info to confirm this. Thanks to the IP. Solipsism 101 (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say for sure what is in the first ref as it's paywalled.
 * The second ref makes no mention of JTF2 or the longest sniper kill.
 * The 3rd ref actually confirms 'Wali' is not the unknown JTF2 sniper that holds the current record for longest kill at 3.5+km. It just says that 'Wali' served in the same unit as this person, meaning person X may have been in the R22R at the same time as 'Wali'.
 * -  wolf  06:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to step on any toes, but this article where they actually interviewed him may be of interest: https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2022-03-02/wali-repond-a-l-appel-de-zelensky.php. Two deployments with the Canadian Armed Forces in 2009 and 2011 to Afghanistan are mentioned, and it states he went to Iraq in 2015 as a private citizen. Seems extremely unlikely he was back in the military in 2017, let alone back in Iraq with JTF2. He may well have been in the same unit as the shooter at some point in his military career but it seems to me that all of these claims lean more towards sensationalism and sloppy reporting. 105.227.155.150 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that article was linked in Solipsism's comment already, but it does more than say he was a sniper, they interviewed Wali himself and there is no mention of him rejoining the CAF after he went to Iraq or of JTF2. 105.227.155.150 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Andrey Sukhovetsky
How would one go about verifying the kill distance? It's being reported that he was shot from 1.5km away by a Ukrainian sniper. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you requesting this be added to the list? I can't really see that being done at this time. As you can see in this example edit with currently availble infomation, there isn't enough to warrant inclusion. If you're only seeking info about the distance, this is not the place for that. (Remember that Google is your friend). -  wolf  22:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)