Jump to content

Talk:Yankee White: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 125.63.158.219 - ""
TonyRony (talk | contribs)
Line 36: Line 36:
==A clearance or a background check?==
==A clearance or a background check?==
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. [[Special:Contributions/71.178.104.51|71.178.104.51]] ([[User talk:71.178.104.51|talk]]) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
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. [[Special:Contributions/71.178.104.51|71.178.104.51]] ([[User talk:71.178.104.51|talk]]) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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]]. [[User:TonyRony|TonyRony]] ([[User talk:TonyRony|talk]]) 00:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


==Obama?==
==Obama?==

Revision as of 00:49, 4 February 2010

WikiProject iconUnited States Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject United States Government

Merge

I added the merge tag. Any comments? Concerns? --BlindEagletalk~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]

What?

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]

Agreed

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

Dana Perino

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]

How far back?

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]

A clearance or a background check?

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]

Obama?

(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]

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]

Nuclear Football section?

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)[reply]


Racist undertone

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]