Talk:Q clearance

Contradiction
According to the page on Security clearances, a Q clearance requires more rigor than a Top Secret clearance. I don't know which page is correct.

Daviddavid 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Badges have recently changed. And trust me it takes more than just Q clearance to get access to nuclear material....such as Reliability Program, Psych evals, Physicals, and a need to know. Even with all of this it is a rigorous process to get into a secure facility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.9.70 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Reliability Program, Psych eval' and such is how one gets Q clearance. And Q clearance is part of more programs (I'm not exactly sure how to say this), than is said here in this article. The article is generally factual but perhaps presents this interesting clearance too simply. Gingermint (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A Q clearance *IS* a TS clearance that includes CNWDI. When I transfer a Q to the DOD it goes in as a TS. Up until a few years ago, a guy with a TS/SCI would transfer to an L since TS does not include CNWDI, but in an effort to streamline things, the agencies worked it out. Now a Q continues to transfer as a DOD TS, and DOD TS comes in as a Q. Rdarlington (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Badge photo
I have restored the badge photo (although it would be great to get a better image). While making replicas or realistic copies of access badges is undoubtedly unlawful under U.S. law, I would be very surprised to learn that news photographs of badges are unlawful, as they often appear in news media. If you assert otherwise, please cite a source before removing the image again. --MCB 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could the DOE and NNSA staff who have deleted the image off the article please identify yourselves and provide us with a proper notification that the original Linton Brooks press image from which this was taken, in which his Q clearance badge is clearly visible, has been officially classified by DOE or NNSA? Failing that, please provide the statute under which unclassified press photos of badges are subject to prior restraint publication censorship. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the badge photo was removed again today without any supporting detail or explanation, I thought I'd post the email that I sent to one of the editors who has repeatedly removed the badge photo:

Dear _________: Thanks for your message. Rather than emailing me, however, it would be better to post your concerns on the Talk page for the Q clearance article. While I do understand that there are security concerns related to replicas and copies of badges, I do not believe that simply presenting images of DOE badges is a sensitive issue or security risk. For example, images of LANL badges appear on LANL's own public web newsletter: http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/122297.html http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/062998.html http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/010699.html http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/031700.html http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/010700.html as well as LLNL's public web site: http://www.llnl.gov/es_and_h/hsm/doc_20.01/images/image009.gif In fact, it would probably be more informative to replace or augment the fuzzy image that is there now with one of the samples from the web. Best regards, [signed]

The copyright status of the LLNL badge is unclear; we can probably use a LANL one with a special attribution tag. (See Template talk:PD-USGov-DOE.) I'll look into how we can obtain a better image.

In any case, I would appreciate if whomever is removing the badge photo would respond here. Thanks, --MCB 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the images from a national laboratory are in the public domain, whether LANL, LLNL, Sandia, BNL, etc. They all have separate companies under which they publish their content; each company simply does work that the government is interested in. This is easily verified on any of the national laboratory sites. The images can still be used for fair use, though.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-02-14 05:10Z


 * You are right and you are wrong. DOE labs are run by contractors which have independent copyright policies and their works are not necessarily works of the federal government. But LANL's copyright policy makes clear that anything other than specific technical information (their scientific output) can be freely reproduced. --Fastfission 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

JUst adding: http://badge.lanl.gov/standard/index.shtml this web page has pictures of the badge. Problem solved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.154.101 (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Big Mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you really know what you can do with a Q clearance card? Probably not, because if you did the image would not be here. With a Q clearance card you have access to nuclear weapons. Weapons that can wipe countries off the map. Who would do such a thing you ask?! How about everyone who is any enemy of any free countries. The fact that the image is blurry won’t stop terrorists. Trust me you are making a stupid mistake and hurting others.--Sportman2 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If terrorists can access nuclear weapons just by making a copy of a blurry press photo, then we have a lot more problems with national security than removing a picture can solve. Gamaliel 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What?! So you think handing out government IDs is fine? Why not just give terrorists free access to the government if we are willing to do that! But, maybe I don't know what I am talking about. If this is so then tell me. Otherwise, I will keep up the fight. Also, about your comment about terrorists and blurry photos I suggest you pick up a news magazine, say Time Magazine, because there are a lot of things a government ID can get you. Blurry photos are also easy to fix if you have the right tools.--Sportman2 00:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If security is so lax that terrorists can forge a fake top level security clearance from a blurry press photo that has already long been accessable to the public, then we are in a hell of a lot of trouble. There is nothing you or I can do to change that, and certainly removing this picture from the article will not make America more secure. What we can change is how we react to the terrorist threat, and succumbing to hysteria and censoring non-classified information long accessable to the public does nothing to help fight terrorism and everything to erode our freedoms. Gamaliel 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they would forge it. I said they could use the codes on the card you get government materiel. Also, govermnent IDs haven't long been freely avalibe to the public. I didn’t think they ever had been until I saw this article. Also, if this is of so little importance why are goverment officials trying to remove the photo so much?!--Sportman2 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The people who removed it are not necessarily government officials. Anyone connected to the DOE or a national laboratory (which is actually run by a company like Lockheed Martin, not run by the government) can get Q clearance. I had L clearance for a few summers at Sandia National Labs. Don't worry, their security extends well beyond being able to do anything with a blurry photo. I recall seeing a freely-available (ie, not confidental/secret/etc) flyer that showed in high detail what each badge type looked like, with fake photos, numbers, names, etc. So, it's certainly not illegal by any stretch of the imagination.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-02-14 04:40Z


 * Then use photoshop to blur out whatever codes you think are there instead of removing the picture. And I think these "government officials" are low level drones who have succumbed to hysteria. If there was a real threat, it would be dealt with on a much higher level than having someone edit Wikipedia anonymously. Gamaliel 01:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I now have proof that it is dangerous to have this image here. The image in the article is cropped from a goverment image. The ID part was removed in the orginal image sometime after the image was published on the internet but not before it was cropped and put here. I do get your point that if this was a huge deal that more action against Wikipedia would occur. But, why do you think people would go to the efort of removing the ID part if it meant nothing? Check this out. --Sportman2 01:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)




 * This is not a real threat. It is a blurry photo, and of no real use in attempting to create an accurate copy. The department of energy released the photo. Though they later removed the ID, they released the full image to the public. If the government ever truly thinks the security of the card is compromised, they could simply change the design. Prodego  talk  01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. This is not dangerous in any way. I'm guessing the edits were made by some student intern who had nothing better to do.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-02-14 04:42Z

Also, none of the images from a national laboratory are in the public domain, whether LANL, LLNL, Sandia, BNL, etc. They all have separate companies under which they publish their content; each company simply does work that the government is interested in. This is easily verified on any of the national laboratory sites. The images can still be used for fair use, though.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-02-14 05:10Z

If this does happen to be a threat to national security, then the Dept. of Homeland Security would already have contacted Wikipedia, am I right? You guys watch too many movies...clearance into a secure lab should require more than a badge.-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? 05:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If people who are only allowed Visitor status (ie, no security clearance) have access to flyers that show actual-size mockups of all the various clearance badges, there is definitely no issue here. As I said, it's most likely a student intern with too much free time on their hands.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-02-14 05:26Z


 * If there is any statuatory requirement to remove it, or if the government really thought it was a threat, they know who to contact at Wikipedia to get real action. Since they have not I think we can let them do their own job instead of trying to do it for them. My guess is that the government is really just afraid that some congressman will say, "You can get access to top-secret badges on Wikipedia!" (as they have done in the past with similarly innocuous material published by the lab), creating a minor political flap without any real relevance to security. --Fastfission 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Look, Sportman2, knock it off. The DOE and NNSA are free to officially contact the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney, Brad Patrick, as has been explained. If there's a legitimate security issue, or legal issue, that's the right venue to take it to.

Linton Brooks wore his badge in public, to press conferences, all the time. It was on the TV news repeatedly, in the NY Times, Washington Post, wire service photos, BBC world news, etc. The image is NOT in any way private or secure. If the government intends to make it classified again, they need to go collect all the tapes and press photos taken, and so on.

We know that DOE and NNSA staff were involved in the effort to take the image down. But we also know that apparently no official contact has been made with Brad. Whoever you are, you apparently don't have any legal or organizational standing to be insisting that we take the image down. Please knock it off. If there's a real issue, contact your security department, have them call Brad, and see if they can make a case that it is illegal or sensitive.

If your security department won't contact Brad, then stop bothering us. Georgewilliamherbert 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a move under way to have this image deleted from Commons. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Q-clearance_badge.jpg --agr 14:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I only attempted to delete it because the USGov PD tag was not valid. It appears that at least the LANL allows the image to be freely licensed (although that's not the case for all national labs), so this image should be alright on Commons.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-02-16 20:13Z

Image removed (and restored)
UNTIL we can figure out the legality of keeping the image, I don't think it's worth the hassle to keep it up. Let's keep it in limbo for a while until the questions are answered. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not deleted the image, but I have removed it from the article. I may remove it from this talk page as well (and replace it with a link). &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are legal or security concerns they should be brought to the attention of Wikimedia Foundation by competent authorities. See discussion above.--agr 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We are editors. All we can be concerned with is whether the image is under a free license and/or fair use. Legality is the Foundation's concern, and as has been shown above, LANL has posted many such images freely on the internet.&mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-02-18 17:55Z


 * I concur. There has been no WP:OFFICE action on the image, and unless and until that happens, I don't think there's any reason to pre-emptively remove the image from the article. In fact, I'm researching whether we can use the LLNL one (which is much clearer, and uses an example employee name "Mary Sample") either instead of, or in addition to, the NNSA one. As a matter of Wikipedia philosophy, I believe that the presumption should be in favor of disclosure / transparency / freedom of information unless a clear legal principle can be presented to the contrary. --MCB 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem with the LLNL one is that the colors are off; it should be blue, not purple.&mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-02-19 15:48Z
 * They seem to change the colors now and then. In my day (1984-89), Q clearance badges were green, and "green badge" was essentially a synonym for a Q clearance. Uncleared visitor and P-cleared employee and contractor badges were red, and L (Secret) clearance badges (uncommon, mostly military people) were yellow. Blue badges were for SCI clearances but were only used within Exclusion Areas. I've seen purple badges around Livermore (outside the lab, that is) but didn't look closely at them. --MCB 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * L are still yellow as far as I know.&mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-02-20 21:41Z


 * What's the hassle? If you think this article is a hassle to maintain, try some of the more popular ones on for size. --Fastfission 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rank and file employees of DOE, NNSA, and contractors would be reprimanded for allowing themselves to be photographed while wearing their security badges. Linton Brooks, as agency head, probably was immune (but note that he lost his job...). --orlady 03:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

18 U.S.C 701
18 U.S.C. §701

Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

If the LANL has altere the image from their website, it's safe to assume that they either: a) Don't want the public to know what the badge looks like; b) Feel that redacting the image is in the best interests of National Security; or c) Feel that some federal law, like the one I cited above, prohibits them from publishing it.

For all the people who cited examples of showing badges earlier on this discussion page, every time there is a sample badge, it is always stamped with a huge sample across it, or the name is something like "sample, sample." ZooCrewMan 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well we do not manufacture, sell, or possesses the ID, or and have not executed any engraving, photograph, print, or impression of it either. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but the Wikipedia does possess a photograph or colorable imitation of an identification card of the design proscribed by the head of a department of the United States, and I don't think that it's authorized under any regulation pursuant to law.


 * Oh, and why did you put "executed" in bold? Just curious...I just don't get why the emphasis is needed...ZooCrewMan 05:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this is a photograph, and the executed part is what we didn't do. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The statute is very poorly worded, since the words "photograph" and "print" are both nouns and verbs. The first part could be read to prohibit possession of photographs and prints, if you interpret them as nouns; if you interpret them as verbs, then the next clause about "executing" photographs and prints is redundant. Which intepretation Wikipedia should use, and whether the existence of the image(s) on the Wikipedia servers infringes the statute is something for foundation counsel to determine. --MCB 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you know U.S.C. at all, you know that most of it would be, according to laypersons, very poorly worded. Perhaps we should start lobying Congress to rewrite the Code so it isn't so "poorly woorded." But, since it was written by career lawyers, it probably passes muster in most situations that might arise. ZooCrewMan 04:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading the statute leads me to believe that the only reasonable course of action is to toss it at Wikipedia's legal advisors (Wikimedia Foundation counsel) and ask for a WP:OFFICE ruling. There are a number of competing issues here, including public policy and First Amendment considerations. --MCB 07:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we ask for the opinion of the Wikilawyers? ZooCrewMan 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll follow up on it. --MCB 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Did anything come of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.205.223 (talk • contribs)


 * I emailed Wikipedia's (then) counsel, but did not get a response, and didn't take it further than that. In the last couple of days someone has claimed they were going to take it to various legal authorities, and was advised to email OTRS, so we'll see. --MCB 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have re-submitted the issue, this time to OTRS, and am awaiting a response. I don't know the expected time frame for this sort of thing, so the best thing to do is to keep cool, and await a determination. --MCB 19:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.9 (talk • contribs)


 * This is in the hands of Wikimedia counsel, as OTRS [Ticket#2007070410014783], currently open. --MCB 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing what you can. Legal does prefer you solve it yourselves so they don't have to draft a bunch of ugly paperwork. Saves us all time and money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.9 (talk • contribs)

(reset indents) I'm not sure which "Legal" you are purporting to speak for, but what I have been referring to is the specific OTRS ticket involved here. As a Wikipedia matter, we have "solved it ourselves", in that there is a consensus of experienced editors that there is no problem with the article/image as it stands. As someone with the duty of protecting Wikipedia (just as with vandalism, copyright infringement, etc.) and as a courtesy to those who believe there is a legal issue, I asked for the advice of Wikimedia counsel, to determine if there is the possibility of liability on Wikimedia's part. Hence my remarks in April, and the present OTRS ticket.

If you are asserting some sort of official capacity in terms of enforcement of 18 USC 701, and I'm not sure why that would be the case for UAGM/TACOM, it would best to identify yourself, your rank/position or official capacity, and communicate that clearly, rather than via unsigned Talk page postings. Thanks, --MCB 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal meaning the Legal department for Department of the Army. No action is being taken, and if it were, it certainly would not be on the talk page, but for there to be something done requires alot (mountainous volumes) of paperwork which we'd all rather avoid. And it wouldn't come from DA (Department of the Army) anyway, so no, there's NO "official capacity" being served here. The Army Legal system will hand it over to the DOE Legal system IF (big if) they feel no other action can be taken, but as with wikipedia's policy on judging based on intent, they're willing to wait and see.


 * There's no litigious threat being made. Just a request for this particular image to removed without the need to go any further. DOE probably has a picture labelled SAMPLE that can be used in place of this picture (DoD does for some of their badges).


 * The above comment was posted by 147.240.236.9. This IP address is part of a block assigned to US Army Garrison Michigan, UAGM, 65 E Eleven Mile Rd, Warren, MI 48397. The talk page for this IP has both vandalism warnings and commendations for helpful edits. There is a note saying "This IP address, along with several others, can be assigned to any of several workstations, or even the system monitor console, depending on when they log in." If the DOE or the Army or any other government agency wants to make an informal request that the photo in question be removed, it would seem that a signed communication to the office would be an appropriate route. --agr 15:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that would defeat the purpose of informal, wouldn't it? To use any official position to leverage this request is a violation of the Federal Code of Ethics. Only through formal communication may official positions be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.240.236.9 (talk)


 * That would not be the case if you were the person whose job it was to make such a request. Unfortunately, you seem to be taking two contradictory positions here. If you are acting as an official representative of the U.S. Government, you need to identify yourself and your official capacity; you would be directed to the appropriate contact with the Wikimedia Foundation. If you are not acting in an official capacity, you are not in a position to make "just a request for this particular image to removed without the need to go any further", and you should leave that to others whose job it is to make such a request. If you have other edits or suggestions for this article, fine, but your continued comments and "requests" regarding the badge issue are not helpful, and could be construed as a violation of Wikipedia's no legal threats policy. Thanks, --MCB 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You guys really are like Wikitruth claims. (Restored from deletion. Very interesting - no legal threat and yet NLT policy claimed, quite a convenient tautology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.205.223 (talk)

Merge proposal
I added the merge tag. I think we could easily merge this article into the Security clearance article. Thoughts? Comments? -- Blind Eagle <sup style="color:red;"> talk ~ contribs  15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose; this article is about a very specific, notable security clearance level... Top Secret is all over. Q clearance, now... that's rare. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective. I think security clearances in general are rare and noteworthy, hence the Security clearance article. The Q clearance is probably the most rare of them all in my opinion. But, it is still just a security clearance like all the others. -- Blind Eagle <sup style="color:red;"> talk ~ contribs  12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Badge
Thank you. 147.240.236.8 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

'''The photos on LANL's web page that displayed DOE badges have been removed. The badge photo of ex NNSA Administrator, Ambassador Brooks, will be referred to the Justice Dept for review and/or action. IntelCommunity (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)'''


 * The DOE has already been asked to contact the Wikimedia Foundation's counsel and discuss with him, after otherwise contacting us. I don't know the results of that, however, the WMF counsel has not taken the image down. Please do not go around threatening us. Have the proper DOE or DOJ staff contact the Foundation properly and continue the discussion there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely NO evidence of any threat of legal action. A comment was simply made that the matter will be "referred to the DOJ for review and/or action." IntelCommunity (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just passing through this topic, and I see the dates here are old, but a comment, still. Merely posessing a badge that says "Q" on it is no better than a brownie button. Procedures at the sites where the clearance is most used and needed are not like walking through airport security, "flash ID, walk through". They are bar coded, tied to your palmprint in a secure database, and more. And then after one IS inside, the sensitive materials are even more deeply protected and need-to-know. A determined "spy" conceivably could do something, but it's really just not that simple. They are very serious people in security, and the badge is only the first level. In the place I know a bit about, even if you did get through the door, you'd have about 20 seconds before somebody asked, "Who are you?" These are not stupid people. Likely part of the reason why, despite the foo-far-ra here, nobody's turned up to pull the pic. If they cared it would be gone in 24 hours, believe me. Jjdon (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

=
=========================== Jjdon is partially correct - but, I won't go into specifics. I can tell you that the photo here is of an outdated design - and, that no one in the DOE complex is currently wearing or using a security badge with that outdated design on it.

=
===========================

Q Level History
Anyone know exactly what date Q-Level clearance started? My great-uncle, Father Michael DeLisle Lyons and his mentor Father James Bernard Macelwane (of St. Louis University) both had Q-Level clearance. Father Lyons supplied beryllium for the initiators from 1944 to 1974 when he died from Chronic Beryllium Lung Disease.

Jeff McQueen MCQUEEN327@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCQUEEN327 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The clearance designations started during the Manhattan Project (development of the atomic bomb) at Los Alamos during WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.243.110 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Q clearance. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20061011093349/http://www.lanl.gov/security/clearances/index.shtml to http://www.lanl.gov/security/clearances/index.shtml
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120510051228/http://badge.lanl.gov:80/uk-usa_classification.shtml to http://badge.lanl.gov/uk-usa_classification.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

PARD
Might be worth adding the PARD status on the page as well as noted here. "Instead, they were assigned the security level Protect as Restricted Data ("PARD") which ranks between Unclassified and Confidential Restricted Data ("CRD") on the LANL security hierarchy." Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

PARD was and old and outdated term when I started at LANL in 2002. It was generally used for marking sanitized unclassified media that should be treated as RD for destruction purposes. Rdarlington (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Letter Q and L of levels
May be it is obvious for English speakers, why these letters were chosen to distinguish different levels, but I have no clue at all. L could stand for "low" but Q? JSoos (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue, but what I can say is that it's not obvious to native English speakers. If I had to guess, it isn't based on anything at all, but I obviously could be completely wrong. Rapidkillerx (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I finally found the explanation for Q from a reliable source, so we can put this info in the article, but perhaps we can't put this source in the article despite being from the certified Twitter account of a professor and expert on nuclear security:

''the "Q" stands for nothing. The original AEC system used a form called PSQ (Personnel Security Questionnaire). They decided to make different levels of clearances P, S, and Q. They ended up dropping the P and S categories.''

https://mobile.twitter.com/wellerstein/status/980648664547971072 --Espoo (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! JSoos (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Classification edits and reverted changes
I'm not sure if somebody is intentionally trying to mislead or if they really just don't know any better, but I'm done "fixing" stuff on this page. I think accuracy is important. And when my fixes are reverted back to being misleading or incorrect, then I go away. Rdarlington (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Chart image
I marked the Wikimedia chart image  for evident reasons. Anyone so motivated, please do so. 🙇🏾‍♂️ Here're some helpful pointers.

To provide citation for the (hopefully) upcoming chart, is it sufficient to simply link to the original image @ Commons?

TSamuel (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)