Revision as of 01:35, 4 July 2018 editVfrickey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,570 editsm →Motives?: closed a parenthesis. added a few words for clarity← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 27 October 2018 edit undoTheStranger616 (talk | contribs)8 edits →Bias and unrelated information in this article?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
::They were Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union.--] (]) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC) | ::They were Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union.--] (]) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC) | ||
:::The records, Soviet as well as FBI's and ]'s own recollections, give a picture of the Rosenbergs as committed Communists who wanted to aid the Soviet Union by helping the Soviets gain the secrets of nuclear weapons (including ]'s and ]'s early thermonuclear weapon concepts - which helped Sakharov conceive designs for Soviet thermonuclear weapons later). ] (]) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC) | :::The records, Soviet as well as FBI's and ]'s own recollections, give a picture of the Rosenbergs as committed Communists who wanted to aid the Soviet Union by helping the Soviets gain the secrets of nuclear weapons (including ]'s and ]'s early thermonuclear weapon concepts - which helped Sakharov conceive designs for Soviet thermonuclear weapons later). ] (]) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC) | ||
== Bias and unrelated information in this article? == | |||
It seems to me that this article has a very strange non-independent tone that isn't in line with the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Also, I'm concerned that this article contains an immense amount of unrelated information about other people, but does not accurately represent the historical debate and ongoing discussion about the Rosenbergs. I feel this page should be marked for major review. |
Revision as of 05:07, 27 October 2018
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
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. |
Julius 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
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 banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 19, 2004, June 19, 2005, June 19, 2006, June 19, 2007, June 19, 2008, June 19, 2009, June 19, 2010, June 19, 2013, and June 19, 2018. |
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. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702015209/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_SENT.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_SENT.HTM
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030801194553/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_TIME.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_TIME.HTM
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211122453/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_TRIA.HTM to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/rosenb/ROS_TRIA.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"Julius and Ethel" (1983) is based on the Rosenberg case as seen through the Nobel prizewinner Bob Dylan's eyes" - WP:UNDUE?"
Under the heading Artistic representations, the sentence
"Julius and Ethel (1983) is based on the Rosenberg case as seen through the Nobel prizewinner Bob Dylan's eyes".
seems to place undue emphasis on Dylan's Nobel Prize for Literature, which nowhere cites the song "Julius and Ethel". The words "Nobel prizewinner" ought to be deleted from the sentence as WP:UNDUE.
In addition, the statement is unsourced, which makes it stand out from the rest of the section, in which sources are given for each preceding statement of fact. It might be better for the sentence to be deleted entirely until a reliable source can be found stating what is said. loupgarous (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. The whole line was poorly written. I've re-phrased it and added a citation. – Mformatt 20:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were Jewish United States citizens..." in lede paragraph is WP:UNDUE
The lede paragraph of his article was modified on 20:49, 28 May 2018 to say
"Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were Jewish United States citizens... ".
.
The religious background of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (both were from Jewish families) is already dealt with in the section "Early lives and education". If there is a notable connection between the religious and cultural milieu and the acts for which this couple became notable, it's not documented by a reliable source. Likewise, if either Julius or Ethel Rosenberg were observant Jews, that is also not documented by a reliable source.
Neither of the two ways it's generally understood that the Rosenbergs could be called "Jewish" is relevant to the acts for which the Rosenbergs became notable. Stating the fact in the article's lede paragraph is WP:UNDUE. I reverted the change accordingly. loupgarous (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Jewish can be an ethnic description. No, neither of them were religiously observant: they were Communists. I agree this doesn't need to be in the lede.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
NPOV regarding the Venona project conclusions regarding their guilt and overall tone of article.
The article seems to state a "contentious" regarding the interpretation of the VENONA documents that I am not convinced exists. Yes, it may be true that a majority of historians feel the Venona project documents do in deed support the guilt of the Rosenberg's, the fact is that their has been some legitimate doubt raised about whether the documents have been properly translated or not by respectable sources. As such, I would rewrite the VENONA documents section to better reflect this. There is dispute by relevant individuals as to whether the VENONA documents are properly translated and as such, whether they do in deed support the long held belief that certain individuals, such as the Rosenberg's and Alger Hiss where indeed guilty of spying for the Soviets. Critics believe that while the documents do indeed show spying was going on, it's not clear that they real-life individuals accused of said spying are indeed the code-names mentioned in the document. The documents do not mention real names so it requires speculation to put the real names to the code-named people in the document. This article should reflect this reality. There is also the issue of whether the immorality of framing the Rosenberg's, even if they where guilty to some or all degree, makes their execution a grave injustice, as well as whether they was such they deserve the death penalty anyways. If any notable persons has argued their they believe the Rosenberg's role in the espionage did not constitute a death penalty level offense that that should be added to the article. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is based off of what the reliable sources say. In this particular article, what serious (as opposed to popular) historians have written on the subject. Who are the historians who agree with you and disagree with the ones currently used in the article? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Notcharliechaplin The VENONA Soviet cable decrypts mentioning the Soviet agent named "Julius" were important, but also corroborated by the detective work of FBI special agent Robert Lamphere in tying Julius Rosenberg to the agent "Julius" in the decrypts - which also mentioned the agent was married to a woman named "Ethel". That part of the decrypts was very explicit and not prone to mistranslation - it was very specific about agent "Julius" and his wife "Ethel" - if anyone burned the Rosenbergs, it was their Soviet case handler. With the VENONA cables, the testimony of Ethel Rosenberg's brother and her sister-in-law, and the Soviet courier Harry Gold, there were no ambiguities regarding the Rosenbergs' guilt.
- We already cite reliable sources questioning the morality of executing the Rosenbergs, up to and including their sons, the Meeropol brothers. We cite reliable sources who agree that the Rosenbergs were guilty. We also cite one of the most eminent legal scholars and defense counsels in the United States, Alan Dershowitz in the lede paragraph as saying the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed" of espionage. We also cite very reliable sources, the VENONA decrypts and the FBI investigators, as well as several historians who discussed the case together as supporting the guilty verdict in the Rosenbergs' case. You're welcome to present these other sources here and we'll examine them and form a consensus on whether to add what they have to say - but remember WP:DUE - these other sources would have to be a significant minority view - not a small minority, as Jimbo Wales says in the WP:DUE guideline. loupgarous (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Motives?
The current article is good at explaining the intel lost, and some of the impacts, but lacks a motive as to why the Rosenberg's did what they did. I'm sure early cold-war propaganda is untrustworthy, but time and evidence should present an answer to "why" they did it. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Money. 50.111.57.100 (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- They were Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- The records, Soviet as well as FBI's and Harry Gold's own recollections, give a picture of the Rosenbergs as committed Communists who wanted to aid the Soviet Union by helping the Soviets gain the secrets of nuclear weapons (including Klaus Fuchs's and Edward Teller's early thermonuclear weapon concepts - which helped Sakharov conceive designs for Soviet thermonuclear weapons later). loupgarous (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- They were Communists and supporters of the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Bias and unrelated information in this article?
It seems to me that this article has a very strange non-independent tone that isn't in line with the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Also, I'm concerned that this article contains an immense amount of unrelated information about other people, but does not accurately represent the historical debate and ongoing discussion about the Rosenbergs. I feel this page should be marked for major review.
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Delisted good articles
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Espionage articles
- Mid-importance Espionage articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class United States History articles
- Mid-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Top-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Selected anniversaries (June 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2013)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2018)