Talk:Selous Scouts

Be consistant

The article uses, "guerillas", "insurgents" and "terrorists" interchangeably, I'm surprised "freedom fighters" didn't get a look in somewhere. Pick a neutral term and stick by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.34.186 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Max rspct:

I don't claim to be an expert on Rhodesian or specifically Selous Scout history, but I have read a fair bit on both and, although I have seen claims that the Rhodesian forces engaged in atrocities, I have never seen the specific claims that you make. I suggest that without citing your sources, your claims are baseless. Would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.147.254 (talk • contribs)

war crimes

In all respect, the way the Selous Scouts operated was seen as committing war crimes to the rest of the world. Answering terrorism with counter-terrorism is, again, terrorism, nothing else. So, the story has a dark side of the coin, too, and maybe someone is brave enough to make this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.77.92 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There were massive war crimes committed by the Selous Scouts. This article lacks balance, to say the least. It's like writing an article about the Waffen SS, and only mentioning their military exploits. The problem is that these same rhodesians have not gone through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is why they won't mention atrocities committed by the rhodesian forces. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the guerrillas were war criminals? Or if not, and the Scouts were the same, why are they war criminals? This thinking needs clarification. 95.149.53.131 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Acidrain4696

I previously contacted this user about their edits, which have some merit but are poorly written and sourced, but they won't come to the talkpage, and revert several editors. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

“ I appreciate the hard work you put in, and you clearly know your topic, but I have undone your additions because there were several items that were unencyclopedic. I will give them an edit and put them back in. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ”

Poorly sourced? What Ron Daily the commander of the Selous Scouts is not a known source? Or my many pages that I have put forth in the citation?

I have revert several editors due me having an unrelated claim on Kim Jong Ill which has gotten me banned, which is turn negates my work. As I was working on both of them at the same time.

So I would like to hear your excuse for poorly sourced as I have made many more additions to this page than you have. Additionally, if you have a problem get a hold of the book and look it up page by page. Here it is on amazon

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0620066741/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1273108704&sr=8-2&condition=used

I do not refute that my editing may not be the best, but i contend that you hold with my original objective point of the situation. Instead of saying that it is poorly sourced. As i stated in the citation page you can go through and match up what i said to the citation, I have the paragraphs if you need them as well to each page. --Acidrain4696 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom, and being contentious and reverting in whole when there are concerns does not help your cause. At least you acknowledge that your vandalism at Kim Jong Il negates your work.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, what 'cause' ? You admit that Acidrain4696's edits have merit - assume good faith, please. Wizzy…☎ 08:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, you did not address anything that I stated earlier.Which means that you either glossed over it or the statements were rooted in falsehoods. All you stated was that because of my view point of Kim Jong Il that it negates my Rhodesian work.... Second, "as reverting in whole" as you stated, was because you deleted all of my work. Then you stated that you were going to edit it and put it back up without a time schedule. You are not an admin and I would have no problem if you edited it and put it up without taking it down, instead You reverted my work, and than stated that I did this. Maybe your story is getting confused.(Check History if there is a disagreement) Third, you have failed to state when I cited incorrectly, and what is this new "cause" you are talking about. Stop talking in circles and address me directly on your concerns or stop writing in the talk page. Acidrain4696 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious POV

His article was in need of a serious clean up for WP:POV and WP:WORDS. I have started. "Terrorist" is specifically on Wikipedia's list of words to avoid because it induces bias. I have opted for the word "guerrilla", which I think is more neutral. Amazingly, this article seemed to be portraying Rhodesia as noble nation of white people surrounded by "black supremacists" and abandoned by other white countries, as opposed to a nation in which its Black majority was oppressed by a tiny White minority. I think more clean up s warranted. I will watch this article to make sure that this egregious bias does not creep back in. Ground Zero | t 02:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Though in fact, Rhodesia was neither. 95.149.53.131 (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

POV problem? Read the revisions that you have put within the Article. You first state that Rhodesia was a racist state, therefore why did the Selous Scouts have a mixed race force. Additionally, why were there black African officers within the military. And when we talk about POV statements, I will accept the revision of terrorist to Guerrilla. I was stating that if they attack within the state of Rhodesia on their land, they will be looked at as terrorists. In addition, the POV that you put forth, is the opposite of my POV, neither of us are objective in nature. You view the Zimbabwe people as suppressed minorities: fine. How is their state security of the people since Robert Mugabe has taken over? How are their human rights situation? How is the food and medical supply situation or their economic situation? Sure things were not good under Rhodesian rule due to internal strife. But please do not paint the picture that they were like South Africa before Nelson Mandela during the Apartheid system. Your POV is an extreme position as well, just read the language that you put forth that, "ZANLA and FREELIMO were innocent organizations". In reality they attacked whites and blacks equally. Here is some advice look further then the books you pick up on Rhodesia/ Zimbabwe (that is suggesting that you pick up books on it) and read both sides of the picture to come up with the big picture. I will watch this article to make sure that this egregious bias does not creep back in. --Acidrain4696 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can't admit that Rhodesia was a racist state, all discussion ends there. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The identification of the governments of the UK and the US as Labour- and Democratic Party-dominated is not within the scope of the history of this unit of the Rhodesian military, and is factually inaccurate. Rhodesian independence was opposed by all major parties in both the UK and US. In addition, the government of the UK was controlled by the Conservative Party between 1970 and 1974, and the United States government was controlled by the Republican Party between 1969 and 1977, the bulk of the period covered by this article. suez56 04:51, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

A fairly obvious problem with this article is that almost all its content is referenced to the former commander of the unit. He's obviously not an objective source on the unit. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This issue has not been fixed. With the additional attention that is going to come to this entry from a recent NYTimes article, it would be good if someone took a serious go at fixing it. It does not seem appropriate for a unit that committed war crimes (as is already shown in the current version) to draw most of its factual content from that unit’s commander’s biography. It is akin to depending on a HIAG memoir for a Waffen SS division’s history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.224.35 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Selous Scouts on patrol" photo.

The photo in the article on the Selous Scouts, (ref. above), are not Selous Scouts at all, but, Territorials (reservists) of the Rhodesia Regiment. If they were Selous Scouts, they would look more like a Sasquatch than men. They lived in the bush for weeks on end, and the white operators were always in "blackface" so as not to be recognized at a distance by the enemy. In addition, the white operators grew bushy beards to further conceal their "whiteness".

I served in the Rhodesian Security Forces as a Military Policeman for my three year enlistment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iarminius (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right. I'll change it. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Earlier date for origin of unit?

This post features scans of an old document that refers to the Selous Scouts having been founded in 1963 as an armored car regiment. Could someone with actual knowledge of the subject inform us as to the relationship between the armored car Scouts and the later unit? - Metalello ^talk 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no relation between the Selous Scouts and the earlier, less prominent armoured car unit apart from the name. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This was a war of decolonisation through terrorism and insurgency waged by black guerrillas (Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA)/Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA)/Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU)) with the goal of ending white minority rule in Rhodesia, a nation led by Prime Minister Ian Smith.

As a Shona I've never heard this was a fight of 'decolonisation' to end white minority rule, we were told in no uncertain terms that the purpose was to bring about a communist state by taking everything from the whites and killing them. Meanwhile thirty years later most of us are refugees who fled the starvation under communist rule. I get that Wikipedia is a very biased source but at least pretend to be neutral when not one single person from Zimbabwe on Earth would even know what 'deolonisation' is nor think we had any other instruction but to genocide the white man and take his stuff. That was the purpose of the war - genocide. Straight up. No ifs or buts about it. And we were CONVINCED it was the right thing, the whites were so demonized we truly believed that the communists who led everything would truly raise us to prosperity if only we killed off the evil white man. We did it out of hatred, because we knew no different and to show sympathy would be a death sentence for us. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Selous scouts beret.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits being made to improve balance

I'm in the process of re-working this article so that it is better balanced. This includes removing or finding other sources for the large amount of material referenced to the memoirs of the unit's commanding officer Ronald Francis Reid-Daly, and adding material acknowledging the unit's involvement in war crimes and the brutal tactics it used more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn’t be using Ronald Reid-Daly as a source without attribution if at all. Right now they are our most prolific source and entirely unattributed, thats a big problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Involvement

Insertion of Cuban and Chinese guerillas led to the formation of the Scouts and they were major adversaries. No mention is made of this, as if the war occurred in a vacuum. The omission limits the usefulness of the article. 68.205.56.144 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources support that claim? I haven't seen it in anything I've read on this topic. The article notes that the Selous Scouts were formed due to the increasing effectiveness of the guerrillas. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)