Talk:John Yettaw

I've nommed this article (comprising only this article's Yettaw-bio section) for deletion
[See this diff of the formerly existing "John Yettaw" article.]

...because, for among other reasons, there is little in the way of reliable info available in the media about Mr. Yettaw himself! All we do know is that Yettaw was a building contractor in California and Missouri who ran a private bus -- the company was called USA Tours -- that carried U.S. Army personnel to and from a nearby base in Missouri. And, he had graduated from college with honors (having completed a course load that had enabled him to graduate with a quadruple major) and is presently apparently just shy of his having obtained his PhD. Yet, as M.J. Stephey (Dec. 8th Time magazine) has written, Mr. Yettaw has become "a magnet for international scorn and speculation." Even though there is a lot of factual coverage about many aspects of the incidents that Yettaw was involved in (that is, of course, the Suu Kyi trespasser incidents), Stephey's comment speaks in part to the fact that there is a lack of reliable coverage of who, exactly, Mr. Yettaw is himself. But, for balanced journalism and also for the compiling of verifiable knowledge of world affairs within an encyclopedia, all reasonably possible interpretations of mysterious events need to be presented, not only just one interpretation that would be possible, as is done in the case of mere propoganda. Hence, IMO the following applies (and in a variety of ways):

Wikipedia is not a[...]a vehicle for propaganda[...]. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ---WP:NOTADVOCATE ↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 01:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202;  ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind[...].
 * 2) Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. [...]
 * 3) Scandal mongering or gossip. Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
 * This page is clearly not constructed with the intent of attacking Yettaw, or anyone else. He was a participant -- a wholly voluntary participant -- in an event that was of literally international significance. Furthermore, the guideline quoted above mentions the possibility of libel, but true statements are never libelous. Neither (at least under US law) are inaccurate statements about public figures made without actual malice. There may well, as I have said elsewhere, be an argument for deleting some of the more speculative comments from the article, and double-checking the sourcing of he rest -- possibly on insisting on multiple sources in many cases. I see no shadow of a reason to delete or merge the article. Frankly, I think wikipedians sometimes go overboard in not including so called "negative information" about notable people that has been published by reliable sources. To me this introduces bias and flies in the face of WP:NPOV. Since this was posted here, and my attention called to it on my talk page I responded here, but this really belongs on the AFD page if anywhere. DES (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, DES, one can, indeed, be defamed by tone and insinuation, which are a form of attack. Furthermore, since, other than the incident and trial he was involved in, in Burma, Yettaw has done little to actively make himself a public person, Is it possible that he may deserve more privacy, with regard to his treatment by Wikipedia, than if he had thrust himself into the public eye moreso than this, perhaps? In any case, as you've said, the section needs to be cleaned up. It's based on a single source that has attempted to delve into Yettaw's background. However, this source is self-contradictory, turning Yettaw's having attended school while working into his not holding a job; takes a person respected within his religious community, who nevertheless had occasionally relaxed with an alcoholic beverage some years before, and implies him to be someone thought a religious kook by those around him, one who suffers from a drinking problem. When the lone source on a subject's background is of this nature, it is incumbent on Wikipedia to just stick to the facts and avoid the hyperbolistic editorializing and propoganda. When I get back to a computer, perhaps later today, I'll simply use the source to state that Yettaw was in school and owned a bus and mention briefly his religious leanings and leave it at that. Also I'm going to excise almost entirely the information about his family of origin; just about every single alleged fact that is in the article about it is negative so there is no way, at this point in time with the skant information available about how Yettaw was raised, to present this material in a balanced fashion.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One can indeed be defamed by tone and insinuation, but one cannot be libeled by them unless they fairly clearly imply untruths that are defamatory. It is a complete defense to any accusation of libel that the statements are true and accurate (and not so presented as to clearly imply an untrue statement). Moreover even untrue defamatory statements about a public figure will not rise to libel unless made with actual malice (under US law). Cleaning up the article John Yettaw or the related section of this article may be a good idea -- indeed it probably is. Deleting that article, reducing it to a bare stub, or redirecting it here is IMO a poor idea. DES (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bus line
(Dokoupil: Yettaw "started driving a USA Tours bus in part to ferry soldiers from their homes to nearby Fort Leonard Wood[...].")

The website for Missouri-based USA Tours' says their buses "transport tens of thousands of soldiers each year."↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 18:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Commentary by John Yettaw
See here.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that author Kent Larsen of the blogpost that Yettaw's above commentary was posted below, vouched for Yettaw's identity within the same thread (here).↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 08:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yettaw's background section's BLP concerns
Today or tomorrow I'll start removing a good portion of this article's section on John Yettaw's background, removing elements of speculation and negative shading, including the references to alleged instabilities within Yettaw's family of origin and the hearsay attributions of Yettaw's having been diagnosed with various physical or psychiatric conditions.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 08:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirection
In this edit User:Justmeherenow converted the articel to a redirect. His reason for this was "(invoking WP:IAR I'm merging this article with Suu Kyi trespasser incidents)". A merge was suggested and failed to gain consensus at Articles for deletion/John Yettaw (2nd nomination) quite recently. In my view, WPIAR is almost never a good reason to override consensus or take an action not supported by consensus. Indeed I don't think I have ever seen an action taken whose sole or primary support was WP:IAR which i agreed with. Moreover, i do not think that such a merge is a good idea, particularly not in the absence of any discussion of it on this talk page. I am therefore reverting the redirect. DES (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal information in this article
This individual is notable for one incident and nothing else. No personal information belongs in this BLP that does not relate to the incident for which he is notable. For example, this person's marital history has absolutely no place here. I can't tell if there is some agenda being pushed here or not. If there is, it should stop immediately.Jarhed (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The decision at the recent AfD to keep a separate article flew in the face of WP:BLP1E; any information relevant to the event was already in the other article, and keeping this bio is just an invitation to invade his privacy, as has been shown. There is no value in keeping this article, it should be turned into a redirect. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps with the personal information removed the results of the AfD will be different.Jarhed (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did the redirect, citing WP:PSEUDO -- which guideline, I believe, supports a page only for the event, due to Yettaw's relative obscurity with concern continuing coverage in the media post the trial and the fact he's not known for anything outside of the event covered by that article.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are being kind of aggressive and frankly, you are one of the editors on this article about whom I am unable to figure out if you are pushing an agenda. My personal request is that you back off from this article a little, and also try to make your discussions more succinct.Jarhed (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jarhed said, "[...T]ry to make your discussions more succinct."


 * No one will say I consistently speak with any silver tongue (...or maybe it's being made of whatever metal instead of flesh is why what I say is so often so vague; but anyway...) If you check the dates of my commentary, you'll find that they begin immediately after Yettaw's arrest and generally continue just about every time he has become mentioned in the news. So, yes, indeed, I had followed the press speculations about the subject and then had repeated them somewhat on the talkpage; however, if you follow the contribution history to the article you'll find that I tried my best to find balance in what minute amount of content I myself have actually added to the article (principally because I never once bought the "God told me to do it" rationale emphasized especially in the US media and instead have long believed the evidence points to the subject's having been gathering and delivering information or otherwise responding, within his actions, to entreaties from whatever Burmese factions). Talkpage discussions are much free-er than main-space contributions of text -- so, if you believe you find evidence of my pushing some non-neutral agenda, please feel free to set out your case for this; however, may I respectfully say that I doubt you'll find much to support such a claim.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 06:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I personally cannot understand a single thing in the paragraph above. If there is something you think I should know, please try to say it differently, but shorter.  Oh, and it might help if you realize that I don't know or care about any of the details of this story other than the fact that Jim Webb was somehow involved.Jarhed (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another AfD
I think that this article should be deleted. Before we put it up for another AfD I would like to see if we can all come to some sort of agreement on that.Jarhed (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) (I like Webb, too.)
 * 2) Your idea of arguement often can be boiled down to "huh?" (That is, is it that you champion arbitrary discipline over endless intellectualizations and debate? I'm kul with that.)
 * 3) You had decided to come along and shorten this article to less than is contained in the lede of the article about the event. I'd very concisely given my rationale for a merger of this duplicated-lede-as-a-separate-article as WP:PSEUDO, an argument you haven't responded to, yet alone shown not to apply in this instance.
 * 4) I don't care if the article is merged or stays. I had only merged it because of the pertinent facts pertaining to the article's state and the commentary in the thread immediately above.
 * 5) If you like it the way it is, fine. It stays. (I don't battle with Wikipedians who come across as blustery policemen, shouting orders first and figuring out what actually is going on later -- if ever. A role of quick tempered arbiter of common sensibilities has merit.)
 * 6) If you reverted me simply to insist on a useless process, although this loads up the project with needless make-work, that's fine too.
 * 7) The previous AfD included one person who had wanted the article deleted, another who had wanted it kept as it was, another who had agreed with that person without elaborating why, another who had wanted it merged and another had wanted it shortened and kept. Yet most of those votes are moot now because you've now come along and unilaterally shortened it to a stub -- to no more than what is currently is over at the lede of the article concerning the incident.
 * 8) (........If you were to avoid self-contradiction in your ersatz argumentation, you would reprimand yourself for acting aggressively and in contradiction of previous discussion. See my point about "arbitrariness" in item number 2 above. And then, additionally, of course, such an assertion, were you to make it, would counteract the guideline of WP:BOLD, in any case; however, my theory is that your purpose isn't argumentation at all but about bringing about a sense of military discipline and order; and I'm already on the record with my being cool with that, were this the case. As supporting my theory, I offer the observation that although every single last contributor to the current discussion in the thread immediately above this one -- along with the current duplicated discussion here -- other then yourself, favors a merger, you yourself think that isn't the way to go; then you suggest that the article be nominated for deletion. I would chuckle to myself but that would probably only irritate you since you've decided that nothing I write makes any sense in any case ......) :~)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202;  ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202;  ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another AfD (take 2)
I would like to discuss the possible deletion of this article with anybody who cares about this issue. I think that it should be deleted. Mr. Now, I very much would like to understand your opinion. Your response above is too long and I don't understand it, thanks.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 23:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Subject responses
In a series of edits User:Johnyettaw has insrted rebutals, objections or qualifing comments on many statements in the article. (User:Johnyettaw states that he is the subject John Yettaw. I have not seen any verification, but have no reason to disbelive this.) These would, as a mater of form, have been better placed on the talk opage, but I can undersand the desire to have objections and countervailing statements visible with the statements objected to.

These comnments should be checked, and if the original comments objected to are not well sourced thbey should be removed. DES (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * in this edit by an IP who appears to be User:Johnyettaw, the statement "Their three older siblings died before becoming adults" was labeled "not accurate" and ages (uncited) were placed after the events. Assuming these ages (15, 18, and 36) are accurate, the "before becoming adults" is incorrect. The newsweek story says "he and a twin sister were born in a Detroit housing project in 1955—the youngest of five siblings and the only ones to survive into adulthood" which apepars to be our only published source for these statements, but is in that articel atttributed to family members but says "The facts of Yettaw's life are also murky, even to his family" and " This is what they've been told". If Yettah has self-published, other than on wikipedia, the statements User:Johnyettaw has made here, it would be posisble to use that as a source. DES (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article now says "According to his ex-wife, Yvonne, he has suffered from alcoholism and possibly untreated bipolar disorder" User:Johnyettaw responded [Libellous and False Light]. But there are two citations that Yvonne said this. Whether she is accurate is another question, and both statemtns indicate that the bipolar is merely her spcualtion, no medical diagnosis of this having been made, according to the same statements. Acccordignly i will remove the bipolar comment as too weakly sourced to remain. DES (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"In a series of edits User:Johnyettaw has insrted rebutals, objections or qualifing comments on many statements in the article. (User:Johnyettaw states that he is the subject John Yettaw. I have not seen any verification, but have no reason to disbelive this."[For verification: I will send you a picture of me and your name visible in the photo - my email address is john7children@gmail.com John Yettaw 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC))"These would, as a mater of form, have been better placed on the talk opage, but I can undersand the desire to have objections and countervailing statements visible with the statements objected to"[Thank you for your objectivity. 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]."These comnments should be checked, and if the original comments objected to are not well sourced thbey should be removed"[NOTE: Thank you 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]. DES (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)"*in this edit by an IP who appears to be User:Johnyettaw, the statement 'Their three older siblings died before becoming adults' was labeled 'not accurate' and ages (uncited) were placed after the events. Assuming these ages (15, 18, and 36"[NOTE: typo correction - my sister died at age 39 not 36... I pressed the wrong key. John Yettaw 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC))"are accurate, the 'before becoming adults' is incorrect.The newsweek story says 'he and a twin sister were born in a Detroit housing project"[NOTE: My sister and I were born on Rutherford Street, Detroit, MI. and not while living in Herman Garden Housing Projects. John Yettaw 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]"in 1955—the youngest of five siblings and the only ones to survive into adulthood' which apepars to be our only published source for these statements, but is in that articel atttributed to family members but says 'The facts of Yettaw's life are also murky, even to his family' and ' This is what they've been told'. If Yettah [Yettaw] has self-published, other than on wikipedia, the statements User:Johnyettaw has made here, it would be posisble to use that as a source"[NOTE: I am currently doing an email interview with a journalist out of Bangkok, TH... but I doubt I will address the incorrectness of being born while residing at "Herman Garden" Housing Project... but I may mention that we were living there during the '67 Detroit riots... but then again... coming up with "proof" may be a bit difficult.... one would have to simply take my word for it. John Yettaw 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]. 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC) ] 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]."DES (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)""*The article now says 'According to his ex-wife, Yvonne, he has suffered from alcoholism and possibly untreated bipolar disorder' User:Johnyettaw responded [Libellous and False Light]. But there are two citations that Yvonne said this"[NOTE: Both citations are inaccurate and misleading. If you examine the Newsweek "Tramp" article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/201938) Tony Dokoupil mentions that Yvonne Yettaw was mistaken when she thought Aung San Suu Kyi and I had published a book. And I quote: "Ex-wife Yvonne says the Burma trip was about business: her ex-husband and Suu Kyi, she heard incorrectly, had coauthored a book together." This should be a "red flag". To set the record straight - I never discussed "Burma" with that woman, Yvonne Yettaw, (or her mother or sisters). In fact, any statment about Yvonne's mother knowing anything about my business (e.g., VA compenation, specualtion about medical isues, education and funding) came from Yvonne Yettaw - an Unreliable - Inaccurate - Source). As an issue of Fact, I did, though, discuss with my children, in detail, what I was going to do in Burma. Verifiable: Not only did I discuss Burma with my children, I shared information with my Bishop of my local Church/Ward, and other family members that I would in all Probability become a prisoner at Insein prison. Pertaining to what information Yvonne Yettaw may have expressed to the Tony Dokoupil, et al., (or whether Tony Dokoupil Accidently or Intentionally Misquoted Yvonne Yettaw) concerning the incidents in Burma, she received all of her information indirectly; namely, she questioned and received information from my children - and not from me. NOTE: Yvonne Yettaw confirmed with me and, had told my wife, Betty, and had told my older children, as well, that Tony Dokoupil had Misquoted her concerning several points in the Tramp article - she did not, though, identify which of her statements were accurately or inaccurately printed; furthermore, Betty and my older children confirmed that Tony Dokoupil misquoted them, as well (this being in spite of noted objections concerning inaccuracies). According to Wikipedia, the essence of Actual Malice may be established based on the following: "Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood." From my position in the matter, Tony Dokoupil made serious information-gathering mistakes by relying on my ex-wife as reliable/credible single-source in his Defamatory and False Light "Tramp" article - not failing to mention his heavy reliance on Weasel Word and Anonymous sourcing, in light of accusations that he habitually misquoted several of my family members. Any aspect/portion of Yvonne Yettaw referencing that she and I talked about Burma is False and Misleading. The "trespasser incidents" (inaccurately) mentions that I flew to LA to meet with my ex-wife. For issue of Fact, I flew to LA on my way to Thailand, I scheduled a two-day lay-over, in Los Angeles, so I could fly to Seattle for business and do a quick return and then on to Thailand. I did not meet with Yvonne. I did not talk with Yvonne except (as a courtesy call) to confirm that our 13yo son and I had arrived in Los Angeles. Our 13 yo son had accompanied me to LA and to Seattle and back to LA so I could spend additional time with him - As a matter of fact, Yvonne Yettaw and Doris Brochu and I mutually agreed that our 13yo son would remain in LA (after we flew back from Seattle) to stay with his maternal grandmother prior to summer vacation and prior to the other children arriving for summer vacation to stay with Yvonne and her family. As an issue of Fact and issue of Verifiability, I did not "abandon" our any of our "four' children as Yvonne Yettaw had openly misinformed the media - more evidence for discovery of False Light and Defaming information, per Yvonne Yettaw and Tony Dokoupil's statements. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]"Whether she is accurate is another question"[see previous comments. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]", and both statemtns indicate that the bipolar is merely her spcualtion"[NOTE: as well as: insult and injury. John Yettaw JohnYettaw (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]", no medical diagnosis of this having been made, according to the same statements. Acccordignly i will remove the bipolar comment as too weakly sourced to remain"[Thank you for having removed the information. John Yettaw 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)] 76.3.49.224 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)]"DES (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)"

Another AfD (take 3)
I would like to try to consolidate the discussion about deleting this article into a few concise statements so that editors such as myself can understand them. I would like to know the opinions of any concerned editor. I think the article should be deleted.Jarhed (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DONTLIKEIT is not a rationale, but since you've said you have no interest in the subject, the editing history, nor the rationales already presented for the article's having been turned into a redirect, the lack of a rationale communicates the sense of an executive requesting input from his underlings.
 * To accomodate this request, I'll try to be concise.
 * The person who states he thinks the article should be deleted had previously turned it into a stub which merely duplicates some of the information currently contained in the article about the event. Therefore, per WP:PSEUDO, the article should be turned into a redirect (that is, should be deleted), in my opinion. Yet, note that this result would be despite the previous AfD's result due to the fact that this greatly reduced state of the present article, in my opinion, has made arguments offered by those who favored in that discussion the retention of the greatly expanded version of this article moot.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My only rationale for my opinion is that this article is a big fat BLP violation. I am trying to figure out why the previous AfD failed.Jarhed (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's my belief that since the previous version was written using the available (and primarily US-based) news reports, its primary author, Kingturtle, and those agreeing with his sentiments expressed in the AfD, DES and DGG, felt that it was accurate and weren't convinced by Mansford's sentiment toward merger nor my lengthy expositions about the article's pseudobiographical, coatracking, and "doesn't-reasonably-avoid-doing-harm" problems.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok then you and I agree. I would like to delete this article.  We don't need consensus on an AfD to merge, which I note that you have already done.  We need a redirect, which you have also already done.  So far as I can see, we are ready to implement this plan, just as soon as we can address the objections of those that disagree.  I do not want to edit war with anybody.Jarhed (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to simplify the above. I am a bit slow at behind-the-screen Wiki-techi-language. I simply want information about the ASSK trespasser incidents and the JWY bio to be correct Verifiability and adequately sourced with non-Propaganda... non-False Light... and non-Defamatory reporting. I appreciate everyone's patience in this matter. JohnYettaw (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Yettaw, I am in the process of removing all personal information about you from this article and the incident article. I am trying to get the editors involved in the discussion so that we can all agree and not undo each other's work.  This may take some days to finish.  In the meantime, I request that you not make any edits to either of the articles and let us take care of it.  When we are done, let us know if you still have any concerns.Jarhed (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jarhed, et al., I will be compliant and not add or edit relevant/personal articles in progress - I figured if I "scratched-screeched the chalk board" then sooner-or-later someone would tell me they're listening - and not simply attempting to clean-off the board. I have a message (in draft) with questions and concerns - but am at a remote location and unable to retrieve it at this time. John Yettaw 209.106.219.189 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)209.106.219.189 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Mr. Yettaw, when you are able, please post your list of questions and concerns on the incident talk page, and I will do my best to address them all.Jarhed (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
This is a single event bio and should be redirected as per PSEUDO to the article Suu Kyi trespasser incidents about the event. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree but that has been done before and reverted. I want to get everyone on board with this action before we do it.  That way, if someone reverts it, we can ask for a user block.Jarhed (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect (take 2)
Ok, we are discussing changing this article to a redirect to the incident page. The reason is that this BLP meets the criteria for one incident notability. So far, we have three interested editors who agree with this: Justme, Off2riorob, and me. Does anyone disagree with this? The editor I think we most need to hear from is DES.Jarhed (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Jarhed, I appreciate the collective help with the articles. I don't want to interfere with anyone's creativity - I'm merely striving for accuracy, that's all. I understand that Wikipedia is not about declaring the "truth," but, rather, what is verifiable; with this in mind, please consider that there are aspects about the compound incidents that I cannot disclose... but someday... verification by independent sources may contradict some of the more-negative impressions existing on-line and in the press. JohnYettaw (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Yettaw, and thank you for your contributions. Please let us take it from here.Jarhed (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To Jarhed: Please have someone email me at john7children@gmail.com when changes have been implemented - I don't want to even look at the incidents article or the bio (it wears me out reading them). After email notification, regardless if significant discrepancies continue to exist beyond my comfort-zone, I'll be back with my input. I want to thank all-of-you in advance for your time and attention to clean/clear things up. Sincerely. JohnYettaw (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a great idea. If you don't get an email, I suggest checking back in about 30 days.  If there are still problems, please post them on the talk page of the incident article.  Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to reply to this message: Should any-of-you have questions in the interim, please feel comfortable contacting me. JohnYettaw (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, Jarhed, let me squeeze-out a few thoughts to fill-in a few Gaps in between day 1 and day 30. Let's this post be written under the heading: "Strictly For Expanding Insight": Which is to say... given the fact that what you and others wrote in the articles Publicly deals with my life and the lives of each of my children... and does not directly affect you or your family. Moreover, and expanding the following View of Perspective quite a bit: I am certain that taking 30 days to clean up these messy and inaccurate articles Doesn't Affect in-any-way... any-of-you Wikipedians or any of your families. You are not writing about you... so who gives a Vernacular Crap if the inaccurate statements continue to exist longer than NOW. Jarhed: The more I consider your come back that I return in "30 days"... the more I think 30 days to clean up the problems on the "JWY" and "Incidents" articles would be a very generous amount of time on my part... and an excessive amount of time on Wikipedia's part. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More than simply a Rhetorical Question... but Literally how many hits "do you" suppose will be generated from Now until adequate and sufficient corrections have been [Rightfully]] posted on the articles? FYI: When I typed in "Suu Kyi trespasser incidents" (just now - approx. 11:28am) the following numbers of hits was posted: "Results 1 - 10 of about 806 for San Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. (0.24 seconds)"... But when I typed in "Wikipedia John Yettaw" (just now - approx 11:30am), the following numbers of hits was posted: Results 1 - 10 of about 240,000 for Wiki john yettaw. (0.25 seconds)." I am not an analyst nor a statistician and am, therefore, not in a position to determine an approximation of just how many hits may have been recorded since the Wiki "JWY" bio was first posted on-line for the world to view... (millions-upon-millions perhaps... and perhaps a few millions more)... nor am I able to tabulate an approximate figure on the hits that have been generated since the introduction of the "Incidents" article first appeared to viewing? Information that I have posted with Wikipedia that is not only inaccurate but the sources Wiki has quoted - specifically from Newsweek is considered by me to be Libellous. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to ask that you rescind/reconsider/recalculate the "30 day" proposal - as I have seen changes occur much quicker time-frame since I've started posting my objections on screen and behind the scenes. I want you to know that I am holding fast to the notion that you and the others will do your best to expeditiously] consider my stated objections as being [[Verifiable... and therefore, Justified. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that the "incidents" article be reduced to publications that do not include statements by Yvonne Yettaw that were printed by Tony Dokoupil. FYI: Articles published by Maria Fisher, as quoted by Yvonne Yettaw, contain statements that are not accurate (e.g., Yvonne is quoted as stating that "she" divorced me - a minor issue on the surface... but in the over-all context in association with other statements in other articles... this I assert... many of Yvonne Yettaw's statements simply reinforce Prima facie evidence of False Light... and in some instances Defamation JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one thing that I find utterly objectionable, that Yvonne Yettaw stated that I abandoned my children. As a matter of fact: I left my children under the supervision of family and friends of the family. For the record... Yvonne not only had full knowledge about the support system... she was the one who suggested that the children stay with her son, Craig Dehner. Not only did Yvonne Yettaw have knowledge of the support system... she gave her approval and suggested that the children spend time with her son. Fact: Yvonne' son, Craig Dehner, was one the family members where the children stayed. FACT: My children were Not left unattended.... nor simply "left with friends." The children had cells phones... AAA... ATM... Cash... Medical Coverage... and most importantly... FAMILY - my children were not left unsupervised. Yet, Yvonne Yettaw (and Doris Brochu)- in some local articles stated that I had left the children "unsupervised." FACT: Statements that are knowingly False equate to Slander... and when the false statements were published... it became [Libel]] and in this case... False Light, as well. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy to my family to my children's sense of peace (as their their fellow students also read Wikipedia and make on-going comments)... please... if you would, quickly put a swift halt in perpetuating inaccuracies. I am not trying to simply Fix my bio... I am asking you to help reduce the PAIN Caps that I have to live-with knowing that so many False Statements that my ex-wife and her family have spread in the press is still being perpetuate on Wikipedia. What I have shared in each post on Wiki (and in this talk page) is Verifiable. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I am not limiting my objections only to what has been quoted (or misquoted) by Yvonne Yettaw that are untrue and unverifiable on her part, there are many articles that have been printed/posted as propaganda and there are inaccuracies that were and still are lost in translation due to complications existent with language barriers. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let this message represent evidence of delayed reaction in response to "30 more days" of uncomfortable feelings of having to deal with the weight of wrongful statements available for viewing on Wikipedia in hundreds of counties. Just Something for all of you to think about over the course of the next "30 days"... while me and my family waits for relief. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Yettaw, let me explain a few things about Wikipedia to you. First, everything that we put in articles has to have a published source.  Your personal experiences and observations are useless to us unless they are published somewhere.  Second, the editors are supposed to try to have a "neutral point of view", NPOV.  Since this article is about you, it is almost impossible for you to have a neutral point of view and you really shouldn't be editing it.  Third, nobody owns the articles at Wikipedia, especially articles about themselves.  I will do my best to make sure that this article does not defame you in any way, but so far as the actual content of the article, that is not up to you.  Finally, and perhaps you have already observed this, your comments on this article are causing a lot of emotional responses that are not helpful to the editing process.  Please post your list of concerns on the incident article, but otherwise, I suggest that you refrain from touching the articles that are about you.  I am attempting to have this article deleted so that all of the information about the incident will be in the incident article.  Please post your comments there.--Jarhed (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To blather on within my characterisically too-long of essay:
 *  Glenn Greewald . Here is an extremely interesting, recent essay by Glenn Greenwald about how the sausage of media-generated "truths" often get made. In Yettaw's case, he himself was in the pokey and the associates he was collaborating with(/for whom he was gathering and delivering information) would seem to have a vested interest in Yettaw's image's taking a hit as to the seriousness or competence of his researches, etc. And, in this mix, along came Newsweek, which somehow cast a doctoral candidate with a history of constructing million dollar properties in his employment history and who recently owned a bus that transported military personnel far and wide, as the unemployed bus driver described by Newsweek's assigned journalist and assisting researchers, using the input from such as Yettaw's former mother-in-law.


 * Madge Wallace . Hey, Truman's mother-in-law, Madge Gates Wallace, lived in the White House and famously thought Truman a bum; this is of historical interest too, but to create a whole profile based on Wallace's impressions would skew Harry's image a bit more than needful over to the "never-do-well" side, too! In any case, Newsweek says Yettaw had supposedly not been regularly employed for decades, then mentions merely in passing that he graduated with a multiple major in the top of his class. It says he is a doctoral candidate but mentions that he argued with a professor. It says he was only involved in the military for a year-plus-change, stationed in Western Germany, then says he qualified for a disability resulting from traumatic stress encountered during his military service. (I'll admit that liederhosen is pretty trauma-inducingalthough I can only get away with my saying that 'cause I'm of fully half German-speaking Swiss ancestry). In short, even a cursory examination of the cloth of Newsweek's spiel reveals enough logical holes through which any interested reader could drive a rhetorical fleet of Mack Trucks. The story is that Yettaw hauled stuff over to a polical figure who is under house arrest by trudging along under the surface of a lake. That is bizarre, true. But as to his motives, if they are murky, in my opinion, the journalistically responsible thing to have done would be to have stated them as being murky and left it at that instead of interpreting the available evidence in only one of the particular ways possible, under the journalistic authority of Newsweek!


 * Wikipedia . As for the Wikipedians, they were restricted by Wikipedia's guidelines to relying on Newsweek. Glenn Greenwald shows the danger of doing that, but WP can't be the provider of independent research. So. There we are.


 *  Self puffery . I personally delight in coming to Wiki-talk pages to take on received wisdom on whatever topic. This tendency earns me few Wiki-friends and most readers' eyes glaze over. (My first page to do that on was that of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. My own family's oral history had it that the victims of this massacre brought it on themselves in some way; I sensed this to be incorrect. After I wrote what I wrote on its talkpage, a history of the incident was written up in the book Massacre at Mountain Meadows, which interpreted the event in the way I had suggested. So, I was "right." Yet, my methodology earns me no friends. I'm willing to live with that.)↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please confine your talk page comments to discussion of the article.--Jarhed (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect (take 3)
Ok, we are discussing changing this article to a redirect to the incident page. The reason is that this BLP meets the criteria for one incident notability. So far, we have three interested editors who agree with this: Justme, Off2riorob, and me. Does anyone disagree with this? The editor I think we most need to hear from is DES.Jarhed (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)--Jarhed (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly dsiagree with such a change. I think that Mr Yettaw has become notable enough that there should be a separate page. Frankly i think recent editsd overly pruned the page, although i am not prepared to fight an edit war on this. But then I have never really agreed with the "one incident" doctrine -- or at least I think it is overly widely and strictly applied. Given that there was donsensu to retain this in a recent AfD, I think that converting to a redir is evading that consensus. DES (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input on this article, and I agree 100% with you that I do not want to get in an edit war over it. I am the one who removed the personal information from this article, but I only did so based on my interpretation of BLP policy, and I did not do it to be contentious.  Personally, I do not agree or disagree with the "one incident" doctrine, frankly, I don't care.  And also, I know that there must be exceptions to the policy, for example, Chesley Sullenberger.  However, I want to know if we can agree to treat this article according to the existing policy, or, do you plan to make this article your test case for changing the policy?--Jarhed (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the policy as it currently stands has some leeway and i think there is a case for this being within that leeway, but I don't think this is a good test case for drastically changing policy, and I doubt that such changes would get consensus curently. DES (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100% about the policy having some leeway, see for example, Chesley Sullenberger. So I propose that we frame the debate this way: Does Yettaw pass the Sullenberger test?  Here's what I know from my own POV: Sullenberger was famous the day that the notable event happened to him.  I saw it all over the news.  This guy Yettaw, I still have not seen any mention of him in the news.  I am not kidding.  I have Fox News on every morning, and I flip back and forth with CNN.  I have never heard of this guy.  Does Yettaw pass the Sullenberger test?  I am asking.  Based on my own POV, I do not think so.--Jarhed (talk) 04:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Long talk page posts
I would like to ask all of the editors working on this article to please make their statements brief and to the point. I want to work on this article, and I do not have the ability to parse your long posts.--Jarhed (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, Jarhead. Verzeihung.↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. In addition, for posts that you expect me to read, I would appreciate it if you would stick to English.--Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Q of Yettaw w/concern VoA video
The Voice of America's English language website does tend to completely downplay the "God made me do it" angle that Mrs. Suu Kyi's lawyer had emphasized from the start; so credit must be given for their seeming even-handedness there, in my opinion. But, be that as it may -- and also to cut Newsweek some slack: the VoA's Ronnie Nyane did post a video news clip about your background on May 31, which predated Newsweek's, um, "interesting" profile of you of June 17. And, the VoA's piece, in the Burmese language, also takes a long tour of the unoccupied site of your under-construction, 16,000 sq.ft. house on the 160-acre parcel, just as Newsweek's written piece did. Newsweek, of course, used the then-unoccupied property to cast you as a character from the movie Deliverance! Mr. Yettaw, you apparently often spoke to the court in Yangon in rudamentary Burmese rather than through an interpreter. Could you provide us a rough translation into English of Nyane's piece?↜ (‘ Just M &#8202;E&#8202; ’ here&#8202;,&#8202;now ) 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, any such translation is original research which is prohibited in WP articles.--Jarhed (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Justmeharenow, I have not as yet reviewed Nyane's work on VOA - but I will take a look and think about posting a response. With reference to the allegation that I "often" spoke "rudimentary" Burmese in court... I happen think my "Burmese" is rough and limited - much less than "rudimentary"... but when some of the Intelligence personnel, et al, in Insein prison conversed with me in foreign languages several of them remarked that my "Burmese" matched my opinion... but, that my skills in Mandarin (specifically, Putonghua and Guoyu, used when visiting Northern China)... and my Cantonese skills (used when in Hong Kong and Southern China) was merely "jian dan" (simple)... but, interesting enough, some thought my skills in Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese, Thai, German, Portuguese, Italian, French, and Spanish, were adequately marginal... but many did say that my Pig-Latin was exceptional. It's amazing what a "Dumb... sonofabitch" (as Wikipedian Mandsford wrote about me within the Wikipedia community) can learn about languages. Now with reference to "Deliverance" the movie... as a long shot... and in the spirit of the Speculative-Rubbish] published widely in the press... Are you thinking that maybe the producers and the director allowed Missouri "Tramps... Misfits... or "Dumb... SOAB"s to play parts in the movie Deliverance? ... or are you intimating that some of the Burmese members of VOA and the ruling junta secretly think I live in Georgia? I say this in the spirit of sarcasm and parody because some of the things published in the press... and re-printed in the "incidents" article is Seriously nothing but Garbage. JohnYettaw (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC) As a suggestion: please consider reading: "The fundamental unreliability of America's media: The proliferation of anonymity ensures pervasive falsehoods." Written by Glenn Greenwald, published on 10 JAN, 2010, on salon.com - retrieved on 16 JAN, 2010: (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/01/12/media/print.html). JohnYettaw (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Note: My issue is not with VOA... nor at this juncture with NewsWeak... my concern at this time involves the manner in which Wikipedia contributors portray the "incidents" article via use of misinformation. Thank you for your creative input and valuable time... all-of-you. JohnYettaw (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, this has absolutely nothing to do with this article. I request that you take this discussion elsewhere.  Further, Mr. Yettaw, I asked you not to provide input to this article.  It is not helpful and is against Wikipedia guidelines.--Jarhed (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question? Is this not the "Editing Talk: John Yettaw (Section)"? In Other Words... Is This Not a "Talk Page?" Refer to the section in the "5 Pilers... namely "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view"... you mentioned the words "emotional response"... is working on the "incidents" article evoking an "emotional response in you?... if so... then you need to re-consider if you are taking a "neutral point of view." Quoting from the "neutral point of view" ... and I quote: "When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, hammer out details on the talk page." This space bears my name! I was under the impression that You asked me not to enter anything on the "Article" Pages... did you not? I think you are mistaken when you wrote above: "this has absolutely nothing to do with this article." In my opinion... what I wrote has specific relevance: First... that there have been things written in the "Incidents" article that has Absolutely nothing to do with the "Incidents" ... Second... there have been things written in the "Incidents" articles that has Verifiably nothing to do with the "Incidents" articles. Third... inaccurate statements that manage to make it into print does not necessarily constitute Verifiability. Please provide a link to the Wikipedia guidelines - so I can be compliant. I am new to Wikipedia and when I spotted this question by Justmeherenow... I responded. Question: Wouldn't it be logical that one would address response immediately below the question on a "Talk Page that Bears the Name of the Person on the "Talk Page?" And you think I should know differently? As I mentioned... this Editing Talk (section) bears the name "John Yettaw"... go figure that it would be "against" guidelines for me to post Answers to Questions on this page. I think there needs to be clarification about whether or not I should be allowed to participate in an article that presents information that directly affects my life. Not one single aspect of the "Incidents" Article bears any weight on your life. Please have someone in authority over you contact me... to help me learn and abide by the established "guidelines" that you seem to have - perhaps - arbitrarily imposed upon me. I have not used foul or insulting language as Mandsford had expressed. I merely answered a question that creatively addressed some of the flaws in the "incidents" article that

seemingly contradicts/deviates from Wikipedia's "Five Pillars."

Retrieved on 15 JAN 01: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_policies Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia. Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, its policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies describe standards that all users should normally adhere to, and guidelines are meant to contain best practices for doing so. A useful summary of the key principles can be found at Five pillars.

Wikipedia:Five pillars From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Shortcuts: WP:FIVE WP:5P The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates have been summarized by editors in the form of five "pillars":

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents; that kind of content should be contributed instead to the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. Respect copyright laws. Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article; all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner: Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,161,342 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Your efforts do not need to be perfect; because prior versions are saved by default, no damage you might do is irreparable.


 * Jarhed, Thank you for correcting me for answering a question posed by one of your editors. Being new to Wikipedia... perhaps it would be more fair that you introduce to the rules and then chastise me for answering a question posed in this... the John Yettaw (section) of an Editing Talk page. JohnYettaw (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I request that all editors on this article framiliarize themselves with this WP policy: Too_long;_didn%27t_read. I am an interested editor on this article.  I do not read anything that is too long, ever.  I am going to work for consensus on this article. And finally, Mr. Yettaw, I will ask you once again: please do not contribute to articles about yourself.  Your presence here is causing problems and is against WP policies.--Jarhed (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

New redirect discussion
The only issue under discussion on this article is whether to convert it into a redirect to the incident article. There are three editors who think it should be converted to a redirect: Justme, Off2riorob, and me. DES has given us his opinion, and he thinks that it should not be a redirect, but he doesn't think that his opinion will prevail. I think he is right, and I think that we should make this article a redirect to the incident article. If anyone disagrees with making this article a redirect to the incident article, please state your case here.Jarhed (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted and not redirected but I suppose its relatively harmless to do a redirect. In no way shape or form does Mr. Yettaw pass the notability requirements of having his own article.

Using the example of Chesley Sullenberger, Mr. Sullenberger was notable for other achievements before the incident for which he became famous. Not the least of which was a long and distinguished career. That long career was a segue into the event where he applied his training to save 155 lives. There is nothing to note even from the subject himself (who has helpfully contributed to the effort) that he passes this test. 97.97.33.30 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much or any objection to this, it appears to have got forgotten about. Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect, please.Jarhed (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)