Talk:Sniper rifle/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Definition of sniper rifle

Editors, please keep in mind that sniper rifles are not necessarily different from any other rifle, and so if we don't include some reference to "used by a sniper" as part of the distinguishing criterion, we won't have much to write about. I think it's ridiculous I have to argue this in an article called Sniper rifle.

Being "used by a sniper" implies "being used stealthily". If the rifle is not used stealthily, then:

  • It's not being used for a sniping task (which requires stealth by definition)
  • A "sniper rifle" is not necessarily required for the task

Additionally, there's no defining physical feature of a sniper rifle that makes it unequivocally identifiable as a sniper rifle. Here's some things that do not count towards defining a rifle as a sniper rifle, with examples:

Here's the logic leading to a definition:

  • If used by a sniper
    • Then sniper uses his rifle stealthily
      • Then rifle features must accomodate stealthy usage (see Sniper rifle)
  • If not used by a sniper
    • Then may or may not be used stealthily
      • Then may or may not have features to accomodate stealthy usage (see Rifle)

So, to sum up, there's only 3 canonical rules of what a sniper rifle is that this article should be primarily built around:

  1. A sniper rifle is used for sniping
  2. A sniper rifle is used stealthily
  3. A sniper rifle's features accomodate stealthy usage

To classify as a true sniper rifle, all of the above MUST be true. If one of the above is not true, then the definition opens widely to include pretty much every type of rifle. However, for the purposes of this article we can accept the inclusion of designated marksman rifles (DMR) in military usage and marksman rifles in police usage because:

  • They are closely related to sniper rifles
  • They are frequently also used in sniper roles
  • They sometimes have feature sets suitable for sniping
  • They usually are not distinctive enough to justify articles of their own

We may also be able to accept information on sniping pistols if

  • They use a rifle caliber
  • They are used for sniping

Remember that .22 Long Rifle is a rifle caliber used for sniping! Other more esoteric, or historical weapons used for sniping may warrant a mention in this article, so feel free to discuss it if you have some good information.

Qwasty 05:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your assertation that only rifles being used "stealthily" qualify as Sniper Rifles. I submit that a Sniper Rifle is "A rifle that is designed or adapted to be used to pick off individual targets at range with great accuracy", regardless of whether the sniper is in a trench, lying in undergrowth wearing a Ghillie Suit, or leaning out of a Blackhawk Helicopter. I think you'll find that many people will disagree with your definition --Commander Zulu 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Your definition covers battle rifles, assault rifles, hunting rifles, target rifles, and probably all other rifles too. Qwasty 05:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't think of this before... If you don't believe me, believe the dictionaries:
Answers.com
snip·er (snī'pər)
n.
  1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place.
  2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place.
In any case, even if the dictionary didn't say that, I'd call "expertise" over a dictionary writer any day. And in fact, I still have to since the definition is exclusive to people, which as we know, people are not the sole targets. That's one reason I sort of avoid dictionaries in settling arguments on technical topics.
Qwasty 05:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You are aware that Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror, right? You are, in effect, citing an (old) Wikipedia article on Snipers to try and prove your point, which is... not really a sound debating tactic, IMO.
My definition does NOT include "most guns"- a military battle rifle (including an assault rifle) is designed to hit the centre mass of a man-sized target at a range of between 100-300 metres, which is totally different from shooting the walkie-talkie out of an enemy's hand from 500m away, or being able to pick off an enemy officer/radio operator/El Presidente of a small Banana Republic with one shot. If you can't understand this fundamental difference, I must find myself questioning what real expertise you have to discuss the subject with. We've established that Sniper do sometimes- even often shoot from cover or concealment, but they don't always shoot from cover or concealment, and they're certainly not the Ninja Sharpshooters you appear to be making them out to be. We're still going to have to come to some sort of agreement on what a Sniper Rifle actually is, because I feel yours is straying too far from the commonly accepted definition, and mine may not be precise enough. --Commander Zulu 06:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether someone trained as a sniper always shoots from concealment or not, that's what their rifles are for, and they're not performing the task of sniping if they don't. I'm totally not following you on the ninja references. Either way, the commonly accepted definition is rarely the correct one in the world of firearms, and sadly, this instance is no exception. Qwasty 06:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The term sniper is attested from 1824 in the sense of "sharpshooter." The verb to snipe originated in the 1770s among soldiers in British India in the sense of "to shoot from a hidden place," in allusion to snipe hunting, a game bird known for being difficult to sneak up on. Those who were skilled at the hunting of this bird were dubbed snipers.
The term thus emphasises field craft and skills of camouflage as well as marksmanship, and is typically used for infantry soldiers so skilled, who specialize in killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances.
From the Sniper article. Qwasty 06:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You can supply all the quotes and reference you like, but the fact is that it is not relevant to this article. You are still trying to ascribe characteristics to these rifles by associating their definition to that of snipers. This is incorrect, because these rifles were also designed for sharpshooters and they don't share concerns of "stealth" or concealment. You are being blinded by the term "sniper", it is just the commonly accepted name for these rifles, because they are associated with the aforementioned, but not defined by them. Once again I have to refer you to logical fallacy. Deon Steyn 06:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This argument has come full-circle. We have already agreed that this article should cover weapons "similar to sniper rifles". However, that's not what this article is solely for, and it is what you are advocating. This article is about sniper rifles. We've expanded the scope to include similar rifles, but it's still about sniper rifles. This is the second most ridiculous thing we've talked about here today. Take a step back and realize how silly it sounds, especially when you start talking about logical fallacies (which one exactly?). Jeez. Qwasty 07:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with the passage from the Sniper article that you quoted- although its definition does contradict your assertation that .22s and Gadget Guns are Sniper Rifles- but the definitions of words do change over time, and I think you'll find I'm not the only one who has trouble accepting the idea of shooting something at point blank range as "Sniping", regardless of the presence of cover/concealment/camouflage. As for the Ninja thing... it comes from the Pop Culture image of Ninjas clad in black ninjasuits, appearing out of nowhere, striking their targets, and then mysteriously vanishing (maybe in a puff of dramatic smoke), and generally having all sorts of Mad Ninja Skillz(tm)... much like the image you seem to be painting of people who use sniper rifles. --Commander Zulu 06:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The passage doesn't contradict. Note the usage of the word "typically":
typically used for ... killing selected enemies from concealment with a rifle at long distances.
That passage is true, most of the time a rifle is used at long distances. However, the word "typically" leaves room for oddities like gadget guns and .22 sniper rifles.
In the same way the word "requirements" leaves things open in the following sentence:
A sniper rifle is ... adopted to fulfill requirements for power, accuracy, range, and stealth as needed by snipers...
So, maybe accuracy and range aren't needed in the case of a gadget gun? Maybe stealth isn't needed in the case of a marksman rifle? The sentence is true on all instances.
Qwasty 07:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this article is not there for oddities such as gadget guns or .22 pistols. that belongs to a discussion on what snipers may or may not use. This article focusses on a specific type of rifle that HAPPENS TO SHARE THE NAME. Deon Steyn 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

have already agreed that this article should cover weapons "similar to sniper rifles"... Have we? I don't recall agreeing that at all- quite the opposite. It's just crazy to be including pistols in an article entitled Sniper Rifles. Like I've said before, if you want to put that sort of thing in an article related to snipers, create one entitled Assassination Weapons or Special Purpose Weapons, or something like that. And you're not trying especially hard to convince us that you have any idea what you're actually talking about. --Commander Zulu 07:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have. We have information on marksman rifles in the introductory paragraph, which I believe Deon originally entered in against my protestations, and I have since relented. As far as knowing what I'm talking about, I've spent a lot of hours writing most of this article and I have 15 or 16 cites throughout my text (adding more daily), so take your ungrateful attitude elsewhere. What have you contributed? How many cites? How many hours? How many years of research? Qwasty 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on "historic" sniper rifles was largely written by me, in case you hadn't noticed, and I've refrained from editing much else in the main text without discussing it, so everyone has the chance to comment. And as for the "ungrateful attitude", what should we be grateful for? Some of us feel the content of this article is either incorrect or irrelevant, and frankly you'd be doing everyone a favour if you just left it alone and stopped editing it all the time to suit your views and thoughts. --Commander Zulu 07:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I actually hadn't noticed. I have noticed it has been greatly improving, but I hadn't noticed that it was you doing it. Qwasty 08:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Qwasty

Qwasty is reverting changes AGAIN. He is has on numerous occasion tried to drown out opposing views by making close to 300 edits in less than a week, reverting edits (some reached by consensus), creating large, repetitive and often irrelevant comments on the talk page and making personal attacks all the while pretending to be in collaboration with other editors. I have already reported him for violation the 3RR|3 Revert Rule (awaiting reviwe on WP:AN3), what would the next step be, a :Requests for Mediation??? Deon Steyn 07:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I spent many hours making over 300 edits in order to improve this article, not to drown you out. I have read, considered, and replied to every concern you've had while I've been doing it.
Why don't you add something to this article instead of deleting things? Haven't you got any unique or useful information to add? Come to think of it, what exactly have you contributed here? You spend a lot of time complaining, and most of your edits involve deleting something.
Qwasty 07:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is the following:
  • You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition)
  • The article is already too long (see Wikipedia guidelines)
  • You add information and ignore critical debate
  • You seem to pay no regard to Wikipedia guidelines on ettiquete
  • You site incorrect sources (like conversations)
  • You attempt to create advertising (Tactical Operations)
  • You misunderstand the scope of the article as agreed upon by all other editors.
  • Most importantly you have a stated goal of changing the article to suite your own political views as it relates to US gun politics.
Deon Steyn 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My rebuttal:
  • You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition)
I haven't ignored them, I have responded in great detail to every concern direct towards me on this talk page. The specific change you mention is the usage of the word "stealth", "concealment", or something to that effect in the definition of "sniper rifle" in the introduction of the article. While I acknowledge I stand alone amongst 3 other editors who disagree with me, I believe the definition of "sniper rifle" must involve the definition of sniper, which is predicated upon concealment. I won't reiterate the details, but you can find them in the first post under "definition of sniper rifle"
  • The article is already too long (see Wikipedia guidelines)
The article is 33kb long. Much of that is citations, notes, further reading, etc that is specifically excluded by the guidlines. I realize some of this article should eventually be moved to it's own article, but since this is the first time anyone has complained about it, you can't fault me for waiting until the article grows a bit larger before we begin discussing it.
  • You add information and ignore critical debate
This is a repeat of your first complaint. See above for my rebuttal.
  • You seem to pay no regard to Wikipedia guidelines on ettiquete
What specifically are you talking about? You have vandalized the article with mass deletes, if I have not discussed at length on the talk page before reverting, forgive me.
  • You site incorrect sources (like conversations)
One piece of information that is relevant to one specific manufacturer has a cite of a conversation, but it also has a cite to other published materials. You deleted the entire cite as well as most of the (unrelated) section - not just the part you supposedly objected to - with no discussion at all. So, when evaluated together with your other mass deletions, I took it as a personal attack rather than an attempt to improve the article, and I reverted it. As I have proven repeatedly, I will find better cites if you ask for them. Why didn't you ask for them?
  • You attempt to create advertising (Tactical Operations)
Very few manufacturers will make an accuracy guarantee. Tactical Operations is of the 4 or 5 I can think of that do, and it's the ONLY ONE that guarantees .25 MOA accuracy. You deleted that cite from a piece of text that talked about rifles manufactured with that accuracy level. Since that company is unique, that cite is also unique also and cannot be replaced. If there WERE another company making such rifles, the cite could be replaced, but still, it would have to be replaced with info about a company. Once again, you deleted not only the cite, but nearly the entire section without any discussion. Why didn't you try to find a better cite yourself in order to improve the article, rather than just deleting everything?
  • Just because one manufacturer gives such a guarantee, does not prove that no other manufacturer does not also. More importantly, this so called cite is only a link to the company website and NO WHERE does this guarantee appear. 1) The cite does not confirm this claim and 2) even if it did, it does not prove they are the only one. --Deon Steyn 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand the scope of the article as agreed upon by all other editors.
This complaint is the same as You ignore the concerns of other editors (for instance reverting a change reached by consensus regarding the opening definition). See above for my rebuttal.
  • Most importantly you have a stated goal of changing the article to suite your own political views as it relates to US gun politics.
I said no such thing. In 2005, under redoing this article, I said There's a great deal of interest from the public on sniper rifles, and a great deal of paranoia as well, and I think it's important for this article to be a good one.
I would like to add here that none of these complaints are directly related to your recent mass delete vandalism on this article, other than your personal beef with me. None of the material you deleted is related to anything we have discussed here in the last several days, and you begain your deletings immediately after a heated discussion here on a topic unrelated to the material you deleted. Most of the material you deleted was written by me and was replaced with your unrelevant complaining commentary, and so serves to point out that your changes were in fact vandalism, and were in fact motivated by hatred rather than a genuine desire to improve the article.
Qwasty 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 3 Revert rule
  • Personal attacks (for instance claiming I don't add aything useful)
  • Not working towards agreement (in fact ignoring consensus)
  • Not assuming good faith
  • Etc. etc.
Deon Steyn 09:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You mentioned a conversation and claim it is also "touched upon" in that publicition, neither of which constitute a proper source.
Deon Steyn 09:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Deon Steyn 09:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I quote from a previous post of yours (on the archived talk page) where you freely admit to a non-neutral POV: One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban.
Deon Steyn 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 3 Revert rule
Does not apply to vandalism
  • Personal attacks (for instance claiming I don't add aything useful)
Mass-delete vandalism and replacing text with piss-and-vinegar commentary is not useful.
  • Not working towards agreement (in fact ignoring consensus)
I participate here frequently in order to work towards agreement, which has been successful many times. Disagreement, in this particular case, is not consensus
  • Not assuming good faith
I looked over each of your edits in an effort to find good faith additions to the article. I found mass-delete vandalism with complaining commentary in place of huge portions of article text. Those were not good faith edits and you're not convincing anybody that they were.
  • You mentioned a conversation and claim it is also "touched upon" in that publicition, neither of which constitute a proper source.
Did you read the source? Why didn't you ask for a better one? Why didn't you find one yourself? In any case, the math that accompanies it proves the correctness of the passage insofar that a mass-deletion of it (and mountains of other text) is unwarranted. This is your only point of contention that holds any water, but I should also add here that you have put forth some efforts in rewriting and improving that section before you suddenly decided to delete the whole thing after a heated exchange on an unrelated topic here. So, taken in context with all of your other vandalism, the changes were reverted by me.
This is ridiculous. My cite proved the piece of text it was attached to. I'm not going to discuss this further with you. (Refers to You attempt to create advertising... above)
  • I quote from a previous post of yours (on the archived talk page) where you freely admit to a non-neutral POV: One thing that I should try to impress upon you is my point of view that motivates me to steer this article away from labeling "sniper rifles" as a unique class of rifle. Firstly, gun control advocates will read this, and they want to know what types for rifles to try to ban.
You quoted out of context as if I intend to advocate gun control in this article. Anyone looking at this article will not see a hint of pro or con on the gun control issue, only facts, for which I am BY FAR the #1 contributor. My point of view is neutral, but the article reader's point of view may not be. The point of view I was referring to is that the article should include coverage of information that does not put sniper rifles on a pedestal of military and police superiority (which you advocate in exclusivity, whereas the text I write compares the rifles objectively, with numbers and facts). Either way, this complaint of yours is also new to the discussion and refers to your complaints about things I've written here on the talk page, not in the article, and so being irrelevant to your vandalism and my subsequent reverts, this is the end of this line of discussion.
In fact, since this is only the latest in numerous rounds on all of these irrelevant issues (irrelevant to your main complaint about the usage of the word "stealth" in the article introduction), I'm going to consider your case in favor of your mass-delete vandalism closed. I'd also like to point out that I believe the entire discussion here, including the following:
  • Mass-delete vandalism
  • Angry commentary replacing deleted text
  • Complaints about my subsequent reverts
  • Your reporting my reverts [1][2] (verdict was in my favor)
  • Complaints about cite quality that have never been brought up by you before
  • Complaints about advertising in cites that have never been brought up by you before
  • Complaints about old quotes within the talk page
  • Complaints about article length that have never been brought up by you before
  • Complaints about my level of participating in the talk page that have never been brought up by you before
...Are all merely red herrings to distract from your original complaint about the usage of the word "stealth" in the introduction, and to garner administrator support in your new personal campaign against me. As such, due to your vandalism and the hours and hours required to address your associated red herrings:
  • I will not address on the talk page new complaints by you on the topic of yesterday's vandalism
  • I will revert without discussion any of your repeated edits that delete large portions of text, as you did in your mass-delete vandalism yesterday
Qwasty 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing inappropriate text (factually incorrect, outside scope of article or violates wikipedia guidelines/policies) with a descriptive edit note, is not "vandalism" and not "mass delete vandalism". Accusing me of a "personal campaign" against you when I tried to form a consensus opinion amongst editors of each contested point only hinders the process. In fact, you have made it impossible for us to reach such consensus opinions, because you ignore the very first one reached ("stealth") by the only 3 other editors participating in the debate, reverted the changed and made it very difficult to continue with that process of reaching consensus on all the outstanding points. The very fact that the introductory definition still contains all the elements only you support and no other editors ((along with Kirill Lokshin original suggestion (diff [3]) is indicative of this break down. Deon Steyn 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation seems like an extremely good idea, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 07:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is the next step as set out in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. All parties have to agree to submit to mediation. I would agree to it, would you Qwasty? Deon Steyn 07:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate whether you whish to submit to mediation or not, so that we can proceed further. During this process we can also discuss what is vandalism and what is not. Deon Steyn 09:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Please spell out for me exactly what issues you want to present to a mediator. Qwasty 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The issues have been presented in this very page countless times, by myself, Commander Zulu and especially Deon Steyn. There's no need for them to be repeated yet another time. I agree with a mediation, I don't see any other way to solve this. Squalla 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There has to be an agenda with specific points, agreed upon, and presented to a mediator. It can't be left open-ended. What I may want to have mediated may be different from what Commander Zulu wants. You never know, in the process of agreeing on points of mediation, we may reach a solution of our own. As I understand it, there is only one issue in dispute that we agree on so far: The usage of the word "stealth". Most of the other issues talked about in this section are new as of yesterday, and don't warrant mediation yet. Qwasty 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I will have to create a formal request of mediation with the issues we wish to discuss then. Who wants in? --06:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)