Talk:List of U.S. security clearance terms

message: I just added tags for list cleanup and the self-contradiction. For the former, see the comments in the above thread. For the latter, note that the lists include an entry for ECI, yet the final paragraph states "There is no such thing as ECI." I don't actually know enough to say which is right, so perhaps the "Expert" or "ExpertVerify" tags should be added as well. Perhaps the "cleanup-restructure" tag also goes here (see the comment thread above this one). Honestly, this is one messed-up article, but it's interesting content.
—CrazyDreamer 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tags 

message: I chopped most of the redundant information out of this page. I personally think this article should be merged with the Classified information in the United States page, or deleted. Jotorious 02:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Classified information in the United States page 

message: I plan on making the following changes:
*Less discussion, more lists.
*Better sourcing. Cull all the "AboveTopSecret.com" stuff and refer to official or scholarly publications.
*Better focus. Should concentrate on security clearance terms, not classification in general.
--VAcharon (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: I cleaned up some paragraph breaks and minor punctuation, but I also changed this sentence: "It is not truly "above" Top Secret, although that phrase is often used by ignorants in the news and entertainment media" by replacing "ignorants" with "those." The use of "ignorants" is unnecessary. Clockster (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignorants?

message: It is stated that  "Information "above Top Secret" is either Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) or special access program (SAP) which are phrases used by media." Is this right?
I believe that "above Top Secret" ia a (single) phrase used by the media. The other two SCI and SAP are used by the intelligence community and the department of defense.
Am I right ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.22.83 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Used by the media

message: The DHS has no "chairmen;" it has a [single] Secretary.  The article was corrected accordingly.  Dave Weiss (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chairmen" of the Department of Homeland Security? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of U.S. security clearance terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722045744/https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/current-directives/470.4-DManual-5/view to https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives/current-directives/470.4-DManual-5/view
*Added  tag to https://www.dss.mil/GW/ShowBinary/DSS/psco/ps_faqs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601191708/http://www.army.com/resources/item/786 to http://www.army.com/resources/item/786
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just chanced upon this page and I am sorry to say that much of the information contained here is either wrong, out of date, or misleading. I would suggest as a start that those who have been revising the article consult the various armed services security manuals. These are unclassified and readily available on the web in PDF format if you look around. My bona fides? Former military security manager.Oldbubblehead (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a lot of work

message: Seems that there is a security clearance above Yankee White, possibly because its existence would also put national security at risk.
A certain US President once officially visited a secret base and was told that the contents of a specific building were "not for the eyes of man" and backed down. He is rumored to have never fully recovered from this revelation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.37 (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting discussion 

message: The entire page is a jumble of information that seems to have arisen from the lack of this information not being present in other articles such as the Security Clearance article. However List articles on Wikipedia serve many functions, but here this seems to be trying to serve multiple functions that create disparate editing issues. 
Make the article simply about the terms. Define them or give them minor explanations. If the explanation warrants more than a paragraph for each separate term entry, then maybe its time for an article. Saml214 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much information that is already present in non-list Articles. Convert to Glossary 

message: Perhaps because the entry doesn't distinguish Personnel clearances from information classifications very well, the statement "There are three levels of DoD security clearances:" is immediately followed by 5 sections, not three. 
I think the count phrasing should be corrected for clarity, perhaps  to show 4 & 5 as supplemental info classifications, not as awarded clearance levels. 65.79.152.44 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are three levels of DoD security clearances:[3]