Well Mark, I've read a lot of opinion on AikiWeb about how Mr. Stevens has done this or that with regards to his translations. Opinion however doesn't constitute evidence of anything other than the author's belief.
So appealing to Aikiweb posts as evidence of the veracity of your claim falls a little short. Note that I'm not saying your assertions are necessarily incorrect, only that when it comes to matters of translation something more than someone else's opinion is required as proof of statements asserting willful misrepresentation.
Opinion? There were actual japanese text presented with various translations. That's not opinion. I'd say that's fairly hard evidence of how some things were changed, omitted, etc. Again, perhaps you should go back and do research for these posts and threads.
Now, by that very fact, it's going to be willful. Each person decides how they are going to translate something. That's willful. But, nowhere, let me restate that *nowhere
* did I say it was malicious. I, like others, think that John Stevens did the very best that he could under the circumstances. Especially where Kisshomaru and hombu was concerned.
But the fact is that certain things that Ueshiba said had very real meaning in the martial world but were somehow not conveyed in the translations. That's probably going to become even more evident as time goes by. Or you could just assign my posts as some rambling drivel by an unknown heretic who's clueless to the aikido world.