Talk:Yankee White

I added the merge tag. Any comments? Concerns? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 17:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

-I like this recommendation but I do not want to be a registered user of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.129.199 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

• The UK is an ally to the United States. The main concerns are critical threat countries like China, Iran etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.93.235 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • It doesn't matter if they are an ally (even the USA's best ally), the article is quite clear on who is eligible for Yankee White clearance (assuming the article is correct). Thus, Dana Perino should not be eligible because her husband is of "foreign descent". --Thorwald (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

The article is false about the marriage relations of a person undergoing a Yankee White Clearance. It is best to say that it is unlikely that a person who has marriage relations to one of foreign decent to pass clearance, so I have read in a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.142.125 (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• I don't see anywhere in the article that reads (or even implies) anything like your has to "not be ... of foreign descent".--Thorwald (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Individuals having Yankee White clearances undergo extensive background investigation. Yankee White cleared personnel are granted access to any information for which they have a need-to-know, regardless of which organization classified it or at what level. The Yankee White clearance includes a requirement for absolute absence of any foreign influence on the individual. This means they must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, not be or have been married to a person of foreign descent, or have traveled (save while in government employ and at the instructions of the United States) to countries that are considered to be unfriendly to the United States.
    
    I paraphrased the part in bold when I posed my question. Sorry for the confusion I may have caused. --Nyadav (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • Again. Nowhere in the article does it claim that a person must "not be of foreign descent" to receive Yankee White clearance. It simply says that the person's spouse must not be or never have been of foreign descent. That is why I asked my question above about Dana Perino's husband. --Thorwald (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
      • Okay, my mistake. I misinterpreted what I read. That does still leave your question on the table, for which I have no answer. Nyadav (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

May I partially concur with the above point asking whether "Yankee White" is an investigation type or a clearance. It is possible for both the investigation and the clearance to have the same name, I suppose, but in my past experience, this has not been the case. Some clearances, particularly those bearing codeword designations, are classified. In such cases, a more generic, unclassified pseudonym is devised to represent these types of clearances whenever these need to be discussed in areas/circumstances unsuitable for classified discussions. Therefore, although I have no recent/current knowledge of the Yankee White investigation or clearance, I agree that this question should be resolved and a clearer distinction be made between the name of the investigative category/process and the name of the clearance. TonyRony (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

(disclaimer: this is not a troll) I'm curious as to whether the current president would actually be eligable for a Yankee-white classification himself, having grown up in a foreign country. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hawaii has been part of the USA since 1959. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, though, if you read his bio he only lived in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971. Garth of the Forest (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, he would have needed to pass a SSBI. Passing that requires, among other things, "independent certification of date and place of birth received directly from appropriate registration authority" (emphasis mine). Seemingly, this has not been completely verified. Growing out of this lack of verification, unrefuted conspiracy-theoryish claims that he was not born in Hawaii do exist. AFAICT, his childhood years in Indonesia wouldn't be a problem unless his US citizenship was relinquished at some point during that period. I suggest that this thread not be taken further here, as it doesn't appear to bear on improving this particular article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

yep, I agree, I just thought that it may have been a notable exception. Cheers, Whitehatnetizen (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I am interested about this. Why would a president need to pass a security check? He or she is the highest official in the land (elected or otherwise). Who would be able to deny his or her clearance? There is nothing about this in the constitution. --Thorwald (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would say that's a question better asked elsewhere - mine was bordering on the same but I was curious as to whether it would be able to be added to the article or not, and it appears that it's irrelevant, so the discussion should end on it I guess. unless we can find some external source to cite about it or something. Whitehatnetizen (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the discussion should end on this topic, as it is relevant to this article. If, indeed, the president is the only person not required to pass a Yankee White test, it should be mentioned in the article. --Thorwald (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good point, that's the thought behind my original question. not being from the US myself I've got no idea where to start looking for this kind of thing however...Whitehatnetizen (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm.... The lead sentence of the article says that "personnel working with the President" undergo Yankee White vetting. My guess is that the President has close and ongoing working relationships with a number of elected officials (e.g., The Vice President, Senators, Congressmen, State Governors) and that, in general, elected officials do not undergo Yankee White vetting. The source cited in support of the article's lead sentence appears only to support the assertion made by that sentence as it regards DOD personnel..

Perhaps the lead sentence should be changed to replace "personnel" in the lead sentence with "Department of Defense personnel". Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The president and elected political leadership do not require a security clearance. The people is the clearance, as long as the legal requirements are met (for president, this means age 35+, natural born citizen, etc.). Senators, governors, and major political candidates very likely had their backgrounds investigated by their own political parties, opposing political parties (to "dig up dirt"), media organizations, and other independent organizations. For the president, if he needs access to information, he has it regardless of the clearance level (although whether or not he needs to demonstrate the classic "need to know" is unclear). No specific types of clearance ("yankee white", "top secret", "Q", etc.) or polygraph necessary. If an elected official did require some sort of "clearance", that would simply be an FBI background investigation and public records checks. Appointed officials and presidential political staff require a background check, but this isn't really a clearance: "The FBI mostly conducts investigations on the following: High level Presidential appointees, cabinet officers, agency heads and staff who may work at the White House directly for the President" (source: http://www.opm.gov/products_and_services/investigations/faqs.asp). -- User:kevin23 —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC).Reply

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 _roe^Blank 00:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

no action for 2 years, deleting this section about a completely unrelated topic. DavesPlanet (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

... but not from an unsupported editorial perspective. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

So how does Yankee White compare to the "nicknames" used other typical security clearances? If this isn't racist you would assume they are called "Tago Victor" and such, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.172.203 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

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".
• Henry M. Holden (2006), To Be a U.S. Secret Service Agent, Zenith Imprint, p. 129, ISBN 9780760322932 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").
• Kevin Groenhagen (2008), What Really Happened: the Story of Clinton Inc. 's Efforts to Rewrite Bill Clinton's Record on Iraq and Terrorism, Lulu.com, p. vi, ISBN 9781435734364 characterizes "Yankee White" as "the nation's most rigorous security background check."
• James E. Wise; Scott Baron (2007), The Navy Cross: extraordinary heroism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other conflicts, Naval Institute Press, p. 60, ISBN 9781591149453 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)Reply

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)Reply

I removed "Protection Personnel of the United States Secret Service" from category one personnel.

1) This is not listed in the source from which this information is taken (see page six on http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521087p.pdf).

2) Yankee White is a Department of Defense background check used on DoD employees and contractors. It has nothing to do with the United States Secret Service, a law enforcement agency under another executive department. Likewise, other presidential personnel like his personal secretary, political staff, etc. do not go through a Yankee White background check if they have no DoD affiliation.

US Secret Service conducts its own in-depth background checks that lead to its own Top Secret clearance, and the FBI performs background investigations on other presidential support staff: "High level Presidential appointees, cabinet officers, agency heads and staff who may work at the White House directly for the President" (http://www.opm.gov/products_and_services/investigations/faqs.asp).

-- User:kevin23

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)Reply

Sorry I have had to remove this copyright content. — Diannaa (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Diannaa:, 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply