Misplaced Pages

Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:01, 20 June 2021 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,557,852 edits Adding/updating {{OnThisDay}} for 2021-06-19. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OnThisDayTagger← Previous edit Revision as of 21:13, 8 September 2021 edit undoPearBOT II (talk | contribs)Bots171,709 editsm Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfDTag: PAWS [2.1]Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header|archive_age=1 year|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Criminals|class=B}} {{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Criminals|class=B}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
Line 25: Line 25:
{{WikiProject Jewish history|class=B|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Jewish history|class=B|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=1 year|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}

Revision as of 21:13, 8 September 2021

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months 

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Former good articleJulius and Ethel Rosenberg was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 18, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. June 19, 2004, June 19, 2005, June 19, 2006, June 19, 2007, June 19, 2008, June 19, 2009, June 19, 2010, June 19, 2013, June 19, 2018, and June 19, 2021
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEspionage Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconJulius and Ethel Rosenberg is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States History Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States History To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJewish history Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Age at death / limitations of sidebar

The right-hand information block suggested that, having died the same day, they died at the same age in spite of having different birth years. Reviewing the code, it appears this was an auto-calculated field which does not allow the flexibility of reporting two death ages at a unique time for non-unique birthdates. To clarify for other readers, I changed the code from 

| date_of_death  = June 19, 1953(1953-06-19) (aged 35) (both)

to 

| date_of_death  = June 19, 1953(1953-06-19) (aged 35) (Julius), and aged 37 (Ethel)

which I believe removes the ambiguity. There is still some minor formatting inconsistency as the sidebar places the initial age in parenthesis, but this was the best I could do with the automated process. At least now they are not reported dead at the same age.


"Grassroots campaign" for clemency?

Not according to this 2012 paper by Ronald Radosh, which describes it as orchestrated by the Communist party (astroturfing would be more accurate). National Guardian is described as a "fellow-traveling weekly" one of whose editors was a KGB agent (pp. 82–83). Radosh also notes that:

The small group put together by the Almans struggled on its own with little support, until suddenly, in November and December of 1952 - almost overnight, it seemed - their committee was flooded with eager vol- unteers. Donations began pouring in. It became clear that suddenly the American Communist Party had reversed course and ordered its cadre to join the campaign and put all its efforts into the work. (83)

It was on December 3, 1952 - the same day that the French Rosenberg Defense Committee was founded - that Rudolf Slansky and his co-defendants were executed in Prague. Clearly, the Stalinist apparatus in Moscow desperately needed something to deflect the world's attention from the sordid execution of the innocent in Prague. The Rosenberg case fit the bill perfectly. (84)

Not until this past year, when the former KGB librarian Alexander Vassiliev released his "Notebooks" (verbatim renditions of documents he meticulously copied from the KGB archives, and eventually smuggled into London, where he now lives), was there corroboration that the American and Western European campaigns to gain clemency for the Rosenbergs had been created directly in Moscow from the very start. (85)

And then goes on to discuss the evidence... buidhe 01:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "grassroots". There is no doubt the worldwide Communist movement pushed the campaign. Equally, there is no doubt that many non-Communists like the Pope supported clemency. By the way, I think the section should be rewritten because it puts forward a biased false distinction between non-Communists and Communists and leftists.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead summarizes important material from body

I am therefore moving some information out of the lead into the body. Apparently it also may need better sourcing. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


Change "Later developments" section to use chronological order

I think it will benefit our readers if we untangle this section. New sources of information emerged at specific dates, which we can use:

  • 1995 publication of Venona decryptions (material that was available to the FBI but not made public during the trial)
  • 2001 David Greenglass later statements
  • 2008 release of grand jury testimony
  • 2008 Morton Sobell later statements
  • 2009 Vassiliev notebooks published online

The Rosenberg children and their campaign for the exoneration of Ethel Rosenberg belong in a different section. I am going to try to sort this out. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

1995 Venona descriptions:

"...For example, a 1944 cable (which gives the name of Ruth Greenglass in clear text) says that Ruth's brother David is being recruited as a spy by his sister (that is, Ethel Rosenberg) and her husband..." But Mr. David Greenglass wasn’t the brother of Mrs. Ruth Greenglass. He was her spouse! This phrase must be written so:

For example, a 1944 cable (which gives the name of Ruth Greenglass in clear text) says that Ruth's spouse David is being recruited as a spy by his sister (that is, Ethel Rosenberg) and her husband. --Анатолий Глезер (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories: