Talk:SEASPRAY

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 June 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: North America / United States

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:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Minor Changes[edit]

I just did a batch of changes; here's some details:

Changed "US Army clandestine special forces unit" to "clandestine US Army special operations unit;" in the context of the US Army, Special Forces refers to the "Green Berets" and special operations forces should be used for other special units.
Department of Defense, we spell it with that funny s.
Close links have not "always bound" the USA to the CIA, since the Army is much older than CIA.
Several wiki links, some language polishing

Some things that still require work:

The Executive Order cited refers to "special activities." These could be covert and/or clandestine activities. See http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/index.html for the difference between the two. These distinctions may be important within this article.
Needs more references; Richelson's "Intelligence Community" might have something.

I don't really know much about SEASPRAY, please consider this edit primarily stylistic and not substantive. --VAcharon 14:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good work, VAcharon. I have just one remark, it is : Seaspray operated under the cover of a private airline company associated with the CIA, Aviation Tech Services. I think that the "Aviation Tech Services" cover was not a cover used in operations but used inside the U.S. to cover the existence of such an unit during its training and all other stuff while out of operations. This is not very clear in the text. Rob1bureau 13:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a fair amount of purple prose, still needs a rewrite by someone more knowledgeable than me.PoohbahLordHighEverythingElse (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What proof do you have that Flight Concepts Division succeeded SEASPRAY? This infers FCD was/is related somehow to the ISA...

This article is all sorts of wrong. Should go under the Intelligence Support Activity Page on Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.14 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there was already a community discussion about this article and the consensus was to 'keep'. So no deletions, moves or mergers anytime soon. But feel free to make any improvements, as long as they are properly sourced and written. - ^theWOLFchild 21:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that the history of this highly secretive unit is unclear, with the available sources being limited. It appears that the unit was initially independent, and has been part of other units for much of its history. As it started independent and there's a reasonable degree of coverage of this stage of its history, I think that it's a viable standalone article. As it's been part of both the ISA and Delta Force, it would also be a bit awkward to merge it into only one of those articles. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]