Talk:William C. Rogers III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William C. Rogers III article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Biased

This article appears to be grossly biased. The veracity of the US accounts is extremely doubtful. To debate this in detail would just be a re-play of the main article. I have therefore deleted the US explanation.Refdoc 00:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

K1 - who exactly blamed the captain for blowing his wife up ? Without source this bit sounds too much like character assassination - not saying that the man requires this anymore, but still... Refdoc 00:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the following page has been edited to remove offensive material and personal attacks. Refdoc 20:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

{Please read carefully !} --K1 05:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
k1 - as has happened several times in the last few days you are out of line and make personalised attacks. Please refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks I would really prefer if you would stick to the question asked and provide evidence that anyone else - apart from you obviously - had the idea that the good captain planted the bomb himself to further the pity effect and his career (and is on public record for this suspicion). You have not provided such evidence, while I have for what I wrote. I am getting quite upset for your lack of respect for other people's contributions. Refdoc 08:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Listen {...}, I explained it once in simple language that even {somen like you } should have understood. There are two paragraphs, the first of which basically says "some speculated terrorists" and the second (which I added) that basically says "some speculated no terrorists". Why {@#*} don't you ask for evidence about both paragraphs then? Huh? {I do not like you}. OK I will explicitly add "no terrorists" to the second paragraph so that {people like you} don't get so confused. It's hard to believe but apparently some people can {...} misunderstand something as clear as this simple article. By the way, {..} you would not have asked for evidence in a "suspected" case, as these two paragraphs CLEARLY use that word. If there was solid evidence one way or the other, then it would have been a FACT not a SPECULATION!! {...}!! --K1 10:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
while I can only continue to advise you of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, I repeat - there has been AFAIK no one on public record suggesting Cmdr Rogers planting the thing himself/pulling a stunt. There has been ample reference re terrorists ( a simple google will confirm this to you) and this speculation has not gone away despite the FBI being acc AP quite clear about the lack of evidence for such suggestions. Could you please also provide some references for Cmdr Rogers media career? To be part of a encyclopedia article this speculation should be in more minds than just your own. Refdoc 10:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
{...}, the article in BOTH cases (terrorists or not terrorists) says "some people suspect such and such" .... well, together with my cousin and the ex-wife of one of my maternal uncle's university friends, I have such a suspicion, and we *ARE* "some people". {...............} --K1 10:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
while you, your "cousin and the ex-wife of one of [your] maternal uncle's university friends" might well hold this among many other suspicions, opinions and speculations, this does not elevate this particular speculation to encyclopaedic heights. Please refer me to a media article, a governmental statement or something of that kind repeating your speculation. Please also provide evidence for Cmdr Rogers media career. Please also leave the dispute notice intact until this matter is satisfactorily resolved. Refdoc 10:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Here you go, {...}:
Storm Center: A Personal Account of Tragedy & Terrorism
By Sharon Rogers, Will Rogers, Gene Gregston
Hardcover / Naval Institute Press / June 1992 / 1557507279
List Price $28.95
and if you want to COPY from what I have written, use COPY not CUT, you {...}; I had to restore my own writing after you {..} had altered it. --K1 11:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the reference on Cmdr Rogers book. This is indeed a significant point. Please though provide now evidence of a media article, a governmental statement or something of that kind repeating your speculation re "pulling a stunt". Refdoc 11:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go {away}. I am done with you. {i do not like you}. --K1 11:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To avoid a further "revert" I will leave this page now in peace, despite your unwarrented removal of teh dispute notice. K1 you are grossly out of line, for reasons unknown to me. I would like to refer you again to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Refdoc 11:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have raised the behaviour above at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/--K1 Refdoc 15:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:JBOC, but there remains so far actually no evidence that anyone involved in the investigation or otherwise of significance (apart from User:K1, his cousin, auntie and ex-wife) have speculated in this or another form. So I think rather than toning down, there should be a some simple evidence for others speculating apart from our fellow user/editor. Refdoc 16:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Cmdr Rogers got media contracts over and above his book publication?Refdoc 16:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After removing the allegation of putting the device there himself I feel the dispute notice can come down as this is the only bit under question. I have searched the internet and usenet using various search engines to find any support for K1's allegation but I guess he is alone in this matter. However, I believe the character and integrity of the captain is any way so much in tatters simply by the facts reported that this particular bit of further suspicion should stay out. The gall to write a book and try and earn money out of 290 dead civilians! Refdoc 09:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:k1 please stop reverting without comment for what you do. Have look at the comment Stan made on Iran Air Flight 655 : Something like "According to Joe Blow of Newsrag Daily, who cited several anonymous military officials, the plane was on a suicide mission.", then add any evidence he might have included. The only verifiable fact may be that Joe Blow made the claim, so we carefully attribute it to him, not to ourselves. Also, I would only bother with the whole thing if Newsrag Daily was sufficiently reputable and/or well-known as to merit its own article. Stan 16:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) A similar note wrt to your suspicions here might just do the job fine Refdoc 10:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've temporarily protected the page until the dispute can be solved here. Markalexander100 12:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I have a few questions: 1- Is anyone aware that Captain Rogers gave a Press-conference two days before the Incident, in which he stated that he did not like the Idea of his ship being sent into the "confined waters of the Persian Gulf...since the ship is not really designed for this. With all the civilian air-traffic going overhead, accidents can happen..."? The conference was mentioned back then by several German Radio-journalists (...don't ask me which ones- too long ago.) 2- A report in "Der Spiegel" stated that there had been a conference in a house in one of the suburbs of Teheran, some time after the Incident. Taking part in this conference were, among others, Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani- who later became president of Iran-; Ali Khamenei, the religious leader, and Ali Khomeini- the Ayatollah's son. The others tried to apply pressure on Ali Khomeini, hoping he would try and arm-wrestle his father into agreeing to an armi-stice with the Iraqis. Rafsanjani was quoted as saying "...there is no point in conducting a war which the Americans will never allow us to win". At the time, the Iranians were close to overrunning Basra- which would have been the beginning of the end for the latter. (...don't ask me which Issue of 'Spiegel'it appeared in; too long ago.) 3- The Uss 'Vincennes' was characterized in quite a few news-articles back then as a 'floating command-post' capable of tracking hundreds of ships and aircraft at the same time. Why is it designated as a 'Guided missile cruiser' ? 4- Is anyone aware of the fact that Captain Rogers- prior to his command of the 'Vincennes'- was part of a Navy-thinktank, assessing electronic warfare systems- including the 'Aegis'- system? --I would be grateful for some info on this; maybe it's useful for the article.-86.41.214.219 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Epopt's edit

I have removed again this sentence :There has been no evidence for the speculation some Iranians have made that this was not an act of terrorism, rather that this incident was a deliberate act to generate publicity for his future career as a writer. THis sentecne was something I had put in during the last throws of the above well documented revert war in order to stop K1 reverting. He did not and was clearly not happy with it in this form either.. I feel acutely embarrassed by the sentence as it basically says nothing and is a torteous way of avoiding narrowly slander. It should not remain in this form. I still think K1 or someone else should bring some form of evidence that this speculation was aired somewhere (outwith the choice circle of K1, his cousin and his ex-wife) Refdoc 14:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing it -- I was trying to simply fix the mechanics of the article, such as linking to the ship, and apparently included some old stuff inadvertently. I have no desire to get into condemning the commander. --the Epopt 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pipe bombs

The article mentions 350 threats involving in 70% finds of actual, realpipe bombs and similar devices (i.e. 245) in SD county. 80% of all devices actually found ('in the country' i.e. California presumably ?) are pipe bombs (i.e. 196 for SD county) I think the reference should stay in a corrected form. This is a common problem in San Diego. And it is largely homegrown acc local criminologist (not acc local Sherrif - that was a misquote) Refdoc 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That quote is a San Francisco criminologist talking about the United States in general. SF is 800 miles from SD, so not exactly a local criminologist. No number of pipe bombs is listed and since it is a 1996 article, it seems questionable how it relates to a 1989 event. I've requested cites for some of the other stuff, should be pretty easy to find the Newsweek one. --Dual Freq 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again re "common" - 245 devices in SD county / year makes it to me a "common" occurance - and that was the local Sheriff being quoted. WRT "homegrown" - SD and SF are California, are they not? - from the other side of the ocean that is as local as it will ever get. Also - "country" - does this mean definitely "USA" rather than "California" - what is the American way of talking about one's federal state? Where I am, it would mean the federal state - rather than the whole thing (Scotland, England, NI or Wales vs GB). Refdoc 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Country in the context the article uses (in my experience) means the entire United States, not just the state of California. My problem with the sentence is that it takes an article written seven years after the fact, and seems to imply that since pipe bombs are "common" in 1996 the minivan explosion is a routine situation and not likely to be terrorism. There is no mention in the referenced article on how many of the bomb squad calls caused property damage, or how many vehicles were damaged in a similar fashion or even how it relates to this incident. All it says is "350 bomb calls a year, of which about 70 percent are pipe bombs or other explosive devices" no mention of how many actually exploded, or how many were placed in vehicles. That could be a very small number, but we are not given that information by the source. It seems that this misleading material should be removed and let the facts of the incident stand for themselves. The minivan was destroyed by pipe bomb, initially terrorism / revenge for the downing was suspected, no leads / no culprit found despite an intense investigation. To say that pipe bombs are everyday, routine events in San Diego doesn't prove this was not terrorism related, the prior paragraph explains the situation and its resolution adequately. --Dual Freq 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article was written specifically in reference to the incident so is not misleading, but simply expresses a view not your own. Refdoc 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The EmergencyNet article most certainly is not specifically about the Rogers minivan bombing. It only mentions it in passing, in one sentence. It is a general article about pipe bombs. I don't disagree with the article, I disagree with the point that someone is trying to make by placing a random article about pipe bombs directly after the Rogers bombing paragraph. --Dual Freq 11:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The most notorious local pipe-bomb incident was the 1989 blast on La Jolla Village Drive that destroyed the van of Sharon Rogers, wife of the skipper of the U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes after the vessel had shot down an Iranian airliner. The case was never solved. I would not call this "in passing". It is about pipe bombs, it is about SD county and it clearly marks out that incident as the most notorious one for the county. The incident is the point onto which the article works up to and focuses and then spreads out again. And while not making a specific claim about the home-grown-ness of that particular bomb it is clear that "white guys with guns and camouflage" are most often to be blamed rather than others. But I readlly do not want to get into a fight over the matter - should we call for a RfC? It might benefit from more than just our two POV's. Refdoc 17:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, mentioned in one sentence and definitely not the subject of the article. The article also mentions TWA flight 800 as an example, but it was not even a bombing. It covers several examples and simply uses the Rogers bombing as another example. My opinion is that the previous paragraph is enough. Maybe additional details could be included, like Mrs. Rogers losing her job, fact that she was a 4th grade teacher on her way to school, and the extreme measures taken to protect her following the bombing such as moving onto the naval base, four body guards, FBS, NIS involvement etc.[1] That kind of protection and investigation doesn't normally follow a random, "white guys with guns and camouflage" pipe bomb incident. She eventually lost her job as a result of the additional security issues. This incident was treated as an international terrorism case at the time and was widely reported as such. Even today the state of Alabama includes this event on its page about international terrorism saying "The bombing was allegedly ordered by Iran in revenge for the downing of a civilian Iranian Airbus".[2] I'm not implying that this article should take a similar position. Investigators don't know who did it and I don't think it is right to imply that it was a simple, random, domestic pipe bombing. Or that it is just one of the hundreds of minivan bombings that happen in San Diego based on the sourced article. It's clear that we're not going to agree on this particular sentence, and another opinion would be nice, I'll be on a wikibreak over the holidays, so I may not have much to add to the discussion in a few days. --Dual Freq 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

After reading the above arguments (and the source in question), I've come to the conclusion that the source is outdated and shouldn't be used in the article. Instead, the sentence that was sourced by this should be removed (remember, this is an opinion), as it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the bombing of the guy's car. I hope this helped. Cheers, PTO 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography?

I'm looking for the actual biography part of this article, does any one know where it went? What is currently here is basically a recycling of the Iran Air Flight 655 article. I'd read that for Wikipedia's "unbiased" version of the incident, but this article should be a biography of the key player in the incident, not a rehash of the incident. Items needed here include Birth year, Birth location, parents, siblings, schooling, career up to the incident, summary of the incident, career and current details. Granted some of that might not be available, but what is here now could easily be merged and redirected it the IA655 article. --Dual Freq 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added some actual biographical details, prior commands, education, family. I still need birth year, siblings, mothers name (assuming father is Will Rogers II), wifes maiden name, list of assignemnts between Independence and Cushing and info on career / employment after USN retirement. The one problem I'm having is the name. All the sources I've used from Lexis show Will C. Rogers III. Is it possible that this article is misnamed? Should it be moved to Will C. Rogers III? --Dual Freq 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

I have removed the following section which should as far as it isn't already be incorporate dinto the main article. My personal opinion is that any attempt to cover the incident here beyond the fact that it was + remains controversial is condemned to become again a full blown tit-for-tat recount. Feel free to undo me, but I think what I am doing just now keeps thinsg tidier

ith a dual-salvo of SM-2 missiles. Iran Air 655, carrying 290 souls, had been airborne for seven minutes, when the missiles impacted approximately 8 miles from Vincennes and crashing into the Persian Gulf 6.5 miles east of Hengham Island (26°37.75′N, 56°1′E). At the time of the incident, Vincennes was engaged in small arms combat with several Iranian surface craft and their helicopter had been fired upon during flight operations.[1]
A subsequent US report by Rear Admiral William Fogarty, entitled Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988,[1] received with skepticism by some, determined that Captain Rogers acted within the rules of engagement.
In 2004, Marita Turpin and Niek du Plooy of the Centre for Logistics and Decision Support, partially attributed the accident to an expectancy bias introduced by the Aegis Combat System and faulted the design and "unhelpful user interface" as contributing to the errors of judgement."[2]
Independent investigations into the events have presented a different picture. John Barry and Roger Charles, of Newsweek, accused the U.S. government of a cover-up.[3] An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.[4] On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[5] However, the case relating to the airbus downing, "the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", was dropped 22 February 1996 following settlement and reparations by the United States.[6]

What I am saying is - there is nothing wrong with discussing the above but it should be on the incident's page - where it probably already largely is... Refdoc 13:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

There is a peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/William C. Rogers III. --Dual Freq 02:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The peer review and the third opinion don't support inclusion of the 1996 pipe bomb information. I request it be removed from the article. --Dual Freq 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no further objection, based on the Peer Review and the Third opinion, I see no reason not to remove the 1996 pipe bomb article. If you disagree, since I filed the Third opinion request and asked for a peer review, you can file the RFC. --Dual Freq 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As you have not received any responses to the peer review I think it remains wrong to delete this Refdoc 02:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"it seems too tenuous a connection". That sounds like an opinion to not include it to me. --Dual Freq 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)