This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Changed "...assisting in the so-called the War on Terrorism..." to "assisting in what was called the War on Terrorism", deleting "so-called" which has a sarcastic tone to something non-judgemental. No matter what one's opinion this is an encyclopedia not a platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.66.144 (talk • contribs)
I can't find that "500:1" statistic anywhere. It has been repeated elswhere but all the references lead to here, i think it should be removed to stop the spread of incorrect informationPaige Master 12:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The '500:1' stat is a stat from the Australian SASR in Vietnam. Seeing as the NZ SAS was attached to the SASR at the time you could probably use it, but I'm not sure if it refered to NZ operations as well. The talk page for the Aussie SASR has the reference's if you want to include it.Ebglider91 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statistic is not correct. According to the citation in Australian Special Air Service Regiment the Australian and NZ in Vietnam killed between 492 and 598 Communist troops and suffered two deaths from enemy action. Still very, very impressive, but not 500:1. --Nick Dowling 08:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think NZSAS operators at an NZDF open day picture should be changed as it dosn , t represent the NzSAS role it just shows a couple of guys riding a Farm Vehicle in Dpm's
Also in New Zealand its is n t referrd to as the War on Terrisom is refered to as the so called war on terrisom or the US war on terrisom as NZ dose not reconise the war BraverHeart 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BraverHeart (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
That photo is the least impressive military photo I have ever seen. --Helenalex 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that photo for real? What an embarassment for the NZSAS. Ajayvius 10:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As there seems to be a debate over the suitability of the image I've taken it out of the article and placed it here. I contacted the person who uploaded it and they state that it's genuine. However, it may not be representative - though I've got nothing against photos which depict the military in non-glamorous ways. File:NZSAS1.jpgNZSAS operators at an NZDF open day --Nick Dowling 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more concerned about the rise of the term "operators" in special forces entries. It's an American military 'marketing' term and seldom (I've certainly never heard it used IRL) used within the NZ SF community. Wannabes, yes, but not actual troopers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.225.30 (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Nzarmy.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the service is New Zealand Special Air Service, thus NZSAS, and this should be the title of the page. Mesoso2 21:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should become New Zealand Special Air Service. If we change the page title to NZ SAS Group, in whatever abbreviation, the Army, following Murphy's law, will immediately redesignate the the NZ SAS as a regiment or a battalion or a task force or something. Buckshot06 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:New Zealand SAS during the Malayan Emergency.jpg[edit]
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that the 'Victoria Cross' section be shortened, as it is the largest sub-section in the article yet focuses on the actions of Cpl. Apiata, which are better and more relevantly covered in the article 'Bill Apiata'. This could be achieved by removing the following text:
New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said: "Corporal Apiata carried a severely wounded fellow soldier across ... broken, rocky and fire-swept ground, fully exposed in the glare of battle to heavy opposing fire, and into the face of returning fire from the main New Zealand troop position.”
The citation said: "The troop could now concentrate entirely on prevailing in the battle itself. After an engagement lasting approximately twenty minutes, the assault was broken up and the numerically superior attackers were routed with significant casualties, with the Troop in pursuit."
Rape:
I have heard the sas rape new recruits, it seems crazy but who knows. What do ya think? Suposably on that tv show about joining them it said during the interrogation training the recruit goes through sexual interrogation. ever heard of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.24.229 (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check your local NZ public library. There is at least one good book on the NZ SAS which deals with the training process, and if I recall correctly, does cover this aspect. 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.106.191 (talk)
I have spotted a slight mistake in this page. The badge is not a 'flaming dagger', its a winged dagger. Secondly the NZ SAS badge and beret are blue, not gold/orange, thats the UK SAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieutenant Wraith (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article's current text has been reasonably stable for at least the last year (and has been slowly evolving) so it's pretty clear that they stole it from here. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the NZSAS has now achieved regimental status, should this article be moved to 1st New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment? Such a move would be consistent with the article on the Australian SAS (which is at Special Air Service Regiment), though not consistent with the article on the British SAS as all of its various regiments are covered together at Special Air Service. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the corps is named the NZ SAS, but the unit that it forms keeps getting redesignated (Group, Regiment etc). I'd keep it at NZ SAS. Buckshot06(talk) 00:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think it should be changed to Regt as well since this page talks about Commando, Support and EOD sqns - which are functions of the Regt - but not those who are 'NZSAS' which as pointed out above is the corps of the badged SF personnel. Clarke43 (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the Australian Special Air Service article title. The Special Air Regiment SASR. Most people wouldn't understand if you said SASR but instantly for SAS. SAS (Australia) would be better which is what most people use SAS (WP:COMMONNAME policy) which an article is supposed to be titled and not SASR (WP:OFFICIALNAMES policy). For New Zealand, NZSAS is the WP:COMMONNAME and not 1st New Zealand Special Air Service Regiment WP:OFFICIALNAMES. The NZ Defence Force still uses NZSAS on their website. The Delta Force article title is a good example of not using an official name. --Melbguy05 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no opinion about the move suggestion as it is (as I think both names work so would be happy with either); however, I'm not a fan of the suggestion to use an abbreviation for an article name (e.g. "SAS (Country X)") as it is simply far too ambiguous, even if that construction is commonly used. It would also be inconsistent with the titles used for similar articles. To me use of the official name in the Australian example is clearer, and we have a bunch of redirects and disambiguation pages to lead people from other potential search terms (i.e. Australian SASR, or SAS etc) to the actual article. Using an abbreviated name would fail the criteria for "precision" and "consistency" as set out at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Anotherclown (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Anotherclown: "Special Air Service Regiment" for the Australian unit works fine, given it's the unit's name (and any formal discussion of changing its name belongs on its talk page). Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)