Talk:William C. Rogers III

message: 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)
thread_title: Questions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Epopt's edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. 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". 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)
thread_title: Pipe bombs 

message: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Biography?

message: 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 (). 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.Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988. (PDF). 
: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, 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."Turpin and du Plooy 2004: 785 (PDF)
: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. 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.International Strategic Studies Association. A Look at the Naval Lessons Available to the US from the Iraq War. May 5, 2003. 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."International Court of Justice. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Accessed December 12, 2006. 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.International Court of Justice. Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Accessed December 12, 2006.
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)
thread_title: Removed section

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

text: "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)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: He is William C. Rogers in the Navy lists and reports, and Will Rogers on the book he wrote.  I think we should use the official name from the time he was notable, and undo all the changes to Will done lately. This would match official records (and probably birth certificate) so be most useful to the reader.  Views? Rwendland (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  William or Will 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on William C. Rogers III. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/11/us/blast-wrecks-van-of-skipper-who-downed-iran-jet.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041105105518/https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/aegis.htm to https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/shiplnch/aegis.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316064937/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818140212/http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Iraq/May0503.htm to http://128.121.186.47/ISSA/reports/Iraq/May0503.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The USS Vincennes was in Iran during 1988. The console in the image shows a picture of Korea, the East Sea, and Japan. The image was most likely taken when the USS Vincennes was deployed to Korea for joint exercises with Korean and Japan in 1991. The date for the image needs to be verified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heftystoragesolutions (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source link was dead so I found a live one. The date is verified as correct. CapnZapp (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Wrong Date for Image of "Large screen displays on USS Vincennes, circa 1988."