Talk:Yankee White

message: I added the merge tag.  Any comments? Concerns?  --BlindEagletalk~contribs 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been proposed since September? Jeez. Go for it, I say. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 07:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: There are only two sentences, and they contradict each other. Someone fix it, please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.231.252 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What?

message: This material definitely does not require a separate article. TexasRazor (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreed

message: The article states that for an individual to receive Yankee White clearance (to work with the president) that they must "not be or have been married to a person of foreign descent". However, Dana Perino, the current White House Press Secretary, is married to Peter McMahon who is from the UK. How does that work? --Thorwald (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, the 6 weeks Pres. G.W. Bush spent in China when his father was ambassador would absurdly disqualify : him from this clearance.  Same with Bill Clinton, based on his travel to USSR.  Henry Kissinger, Madelyn Albright, and :Zbigniew Brzsinski (sorry about the spelling) would also be disqualified, based on place of birth. Also Gen Shalikashvili. I'm : sure the list goes on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dana Perino

message: A person who is being considered for Yankee White clearance has to "not be ... of foreign descent," but then technically no one is of purely American descent further back than about 450 years, unless they are of Native American descent, and even there there is likely some point where no person can date lineage purely back to America.  (Yes, I'm half-joking here.)
But to be serious: 
The great majority of Americans can probably only trace American descendancy back about 100 to 200 years, if even that far back.  Many, only a few generations within the last century.  How far back would the government actually look to satisfy this condition?  --Nyadav (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How far back?

message: One sentence says "Yankee White is a security clearance given in the United States for personnel working with the President."  Another sentence says "Contrary to popular lore, the Yankee White clearance given to personnel who work directly with the President is not a classification, but rather a type of background check."  It seems to me that a clearance is not the same thing as a background check.  A background check may or may not lead to a clearance.  Therefore, it looks like we should remove the claim that the Yankee White is a type of background check. 71.178.104.51 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article cites Selection of DoD Military and Civilian Personnel and Contractor Employees for Assignment to Presidential Support Activities (PSAs), Department of Defense Instruction No. 5210.87 (November 30, 1998) (archived from the original on 8 February 2008), which says thet the term "Yankee White" is an "administrative nickname". The lead sentence of the article says, "Yankee White is an administrative nickname for a background check given ...". The "popular lore" information was unsupported but apparently came from this source, for which I have just added a cite. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, Yankee White is a nickname given to the background check performed on personnel assigned to the President.  It is certainly not a clearance.  The clearance for these positions is statutory, and is not based on passing the check.  The check only exists to alert the President and the Senate to potential problems.  For example, if Barack Obama successfully appointed Bill Ayers as Secretary of the Army, then Bill Ayers would get Top Secret clearance, even though he would "fail" the background check.  Yankee White may also refer to the clearances gained by statute. 96.244.180.44 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But an assertion to that effect in the article would need to be attributable to a verifiable reliable supporting source. I looked, and the sources I found differed on that point (I'm not sure on the reliability of the various sources re that specific point). Characterization as an "administrative nickname" can be supported by citing this official document which defines it as such in re a request for a background check on a potential PSA asignee. Also, a number of other sources I've looked at seem to use the term "Yankee White" as a nickname for a clearance granted upon successful completion of that background check. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A clearance or a background check?

message: Is that really needed in this article? If it is, it should be changed to show another example of where Yankee White is required.  Jac roeBlank 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Football section? 

message: Its quite a racist term, no mention of it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.158.219 (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's not. You just don't understand the etymology of the term. Not every term that has "white" or "black" in it is racist. --Thorwald (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that question/statement above is being asked is a clear indicator that the term and its etymology needs to be adressed and explained. Is white used as a Simile for inocence, that the persons record is white and therefor ok? Mabye thats all wrong as thats just an association I got when reading, but this needs to be explained! :-) 90.142.144.88 (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ... but not from an unsupported editorial perspective. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist undertone 

message: I've removed the now-unsupported assertion
Contrary to popular lore, the Yankee White clearance given to personnel who work directly with the President is not a classification, but rather a type of background check.
from the article. I did a bit of googling, and turned up the following:
* In the Congressional record for the Senate on November 4, 2005 Senator Clarence Saxby Chambliss refers to "Yankee White" as an "elite presidential protection program.
* GSA document refers to "Yankee White" as a "security clearance".
* press release by congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro refers to "Yankee White" as a "clearance".
* This U.S. Navy solicitation related to Presidential helicopter support refers to "Yankee White" as a "clearance" and relates it to a category of clearances which would include a "secret clearance".
* says refers to "Yankee White" as "... a top-secret SCI Yankee White security clearance, and says, Yankee White is a security clearance compartment associated with White House presidential support duties". (SCI is an acronym for "Sensitive Compartmented Information").
* characterizes "Yankee White" as "the nation's most rigorous security background check."
* speaks of a person having been "... granted the top secret clearance after clearing a "Yankee white"  background check, ...".
There are no doubt a lot of sources out there which I have not looked at. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterization of "Yankee White" 

message: I've reverted this edit which, in my personal opinion, is probably meritorious. My guess is that the removed assertion is factually incorrect, but it is supported -- and see WP:V and WP:DUE. Perhaps a WP:RS argument can be made, or perhaps this is a case where WP:IAR applies. In the event that my reversion is reverted, I  don't intend to argue this further. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not to have been married" assertion 

message: This is a discussion of a WP:BRD revert of a WP:BOLD change in the article lead in this edit.
The reverted edit would have added the following material ahead of the current opening paragraph of the lead. It is unsupported, appears not to introduce supported content currently present in the article body. If this material is supportabe, its addition to the article in some form might be useful. 
Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I have had to remove this copyright content. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , no objection. As I recall, though, I requoted material added to the article by an anon without support or attibution. Could you identify the source of the copyrighted material which caused this recaction? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the deletion logs, I see it was https://www.electrospaces.net/2013/09/the-us-classification-system.html  — Diannaa (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Thanks. That page was on this website. It seems to be no longer be around, but I found an archived version here. If anyone is interested in revisiting this, the issue was whether to assert that Yankee White is simply an administrative nickname or the name of a Special access program in the lead sentence, and supportability of such an assertion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yankee White as a SAP