Misplaced Pages

Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 3 December 2017 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:33, 3 December 2017 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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: 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.
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
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 iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
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 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
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
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, and June 19, 2013.
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: 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.

NPV maintained?

I'm questioning the NPV of this article. The article seems quite slanted towards putting forward a largely discredited theory of the Rosenburg's innocence. Anyone familiar with this episode is aware that it was a celebrity cause of the far left for 20 years that the Rosenbergs were innocent. Eventually the evidence became overwhelming with the release of the Venona intercepts and so it was shelved.

It seems this article continues the tradition, now limited to trying to prove the innocence of Ethyl Rosenburg, alone. In fact as current written it might better by titled "The Innocence of Ethyl Rosenberg".

I note that many of the sources are from the Communist news paper "Sparticus" which can hardly be considered a reliable source in an article about Communist plots and spying.

Having a section on "controversy" and including some trimmed down information on this might be appropriate, but repurposing the article as ongoing propaganda is not.

I believe the article falls far short of maintaining a neutral point of view.

24.22.76.12 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Spartacus Educational is not a Communist newspaper, though it does have a strange name. You are possibly confusing it with the Spartacus League or the Spartacist League (US).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Generally, this article complies with WP:NPOV. The section "Later Developments" has the minor issue that it has a single paragraph devoted to recently declassified Soviet spy agency telegrams identifying Ethel Rosenberg by name and establishing she performed acts to support her husband's espionage, and four paragraphs talking about Ethel Rosenberg's innocence.
This is not a huge POV issue for a reader who understands how to weigh emotional appeals (including the troubling statement that star witnesses in the Rosenberg's trial much later came forth to recant their statements about Ethel Rosenberg during her trial). However, less sophisticated readers may just count lines of text in our article and be persuaded of Ethel Rosenberg's innocence. At that point, our article loses encyclopedic value because walls of text about efforts to exonerate Ethel Rosenberg create WP:UNDUE issues.
Does anyone else think we ought to either
  • summarize the recent statements promoting Ethel Rosenberg's innocence in a paragraph or two (creating a separate main article in which the information as it appears in this article is presented in its present level of detail, along with her descendants' efforts to have her officially exonerated), or
  • expand the description of the VENONA decrypt evidence against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg so that is carries the same weight in the "Later Developments" section as the rest of the section?
If I see other editors support either of these options, I'll do a Request for Consensus on the one that gets the most support. loupgarous (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethel

"Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 – June 19, 1953) and Ethel Elizabeth Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 – June 19, 1953) were American citizens who spied for the Soviet Union" --That's the lead sentence, but the article goes on to say that the evidence strongly indicates that Ethel did no spying. Wik should not have self-contradictory articles. Kdammers (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead is correct. The rest of the article has been COATRACKED to claim their innocence. Changes coming soon. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The article should be neutral. Controversy continues. It would be better to say that they were American citizens who were executed for spying for the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that stating they spied for the Soviets is not neutral. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Current wording of the lead reflects WP:WEIGHT of specialist historians' opinion about Ethel's culpability (and absolutely no RS disputes Julius's guilt any more): "In 2014, five historians who had published on the Rosenberg case wrote that Soviet documents show that "Ethel Rosenberg hid money and espionage paraphernalia for Julius, served as an intermediary for communications with his Soviet intelligence contacts, provided her personal evaluation of individuals Julius considered recruiting, and was present at meetings with his sources. They also demonstrate that Julius reported to the KGB that Ethel persuaded Ruth Greenglass to travel to New Mexico to recruit David as a spy."" 73.114.32.138 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is corroborated in Richard Rhodes' history of the development of thermonuclear weapons, Dark Sun, which describes how encrypted telegraphs from Soviet intelligence case officers in the US identified Ethel Rosenberg by her first name. This same set of decrypts led eventually to the arrest of Klaus Fuchs and the chain of events which caused Harry Gold's arrest, and that of David Greenglass, and the Greenglasses' testimony implicating both Rosenbergs in the courier network from Fuchs at Los Alamos to their NKVD handlers. Any language in the article stating their innocence must be balanced with the statements the Greenglasses made to the FBI, and the VENONA decrypts showing Ethel Rosenberg acted as a culpable accessory of her husband.
I just read the article. Under ==Later developments==, it presents four various narratives of Ethel Rosenberg's innocence of the charges, each occupying a separate paragraph, in parallel with a single paragraph on the Venona decrypts which indicate Ethel Rosenberg's guilt.
That in itself might be considered WP:UNDUE - the statements maintaining Ethel Rosenberg's innocence occupy five times the article space as the paragraph describing the Venona decrypts which showed the Soviets were aware of her activity on their behalf - which amounted to acting as a witting accessory of her husband Julius Rosenberg.
It's not a huge issue with me, personally. No one's covered with glory in this sorry episode but the men who discovered the Rosenberg's espionage, Meredith Gardner and Robert Lamphere. who did their jobs in good faith and honorably.
I would, however, endorse a consensus that we ought to have two subsections in ==Later developments==, one on statements affirming Ethel Rosenberg's innocence, one on the VENONA decrypts which affirm her guilt. It's important on contentious cases such as this that we're careful to be even-handed. I don't blame the Meeropols for wanting to have their mother exonerated, but amount of article space devoted to that in this article belongs in a separate main article (perhaps "Efforts to Exonerate Ethel Rosenberg"). loupgarous (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the intro: Distilling this consensus, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed"

What exactly does "guilty - and framed" mean anyhow? It sounds like wishy-washy legal speak that you would expect from a lawyer. If uttered by anyone else they would be called weasel words. Simply because it was uttered by some famous lawyer doesn't make it really material to the subject and here is sounds very vague to the point of worthless. Perhaps it can be removed. Zedshort (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It means the Rosenbergs spied for the USSR (both of them, although Julius did most of the legwork) but that they were victims of prosecutorial misconduct. This is the position of most scholars who have gone into the question (i added cites to back up). It's not 'weasel words' it's a direct and pithy and accurate. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
And why is Alan Dershowitz quoted? Is he an expert in this case? Simply because he is a famous lawyer and even has credentials in some aspects of the law does not make him a useful person to quote on the subject. To label them both guilty and at the same time framed is precisly what I mean by weasel words...to have it both ways and very lawyerly. Zedshort (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Why not read Radosh and Milton's book? NPalgan2 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not having it both ways.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It means what it seems to mean ... nothing. Those are just weasel words that should be removed. Dershowitz's opinion should be removed. It is not based on fact. It is merely an opinion, and not even a legal opinion. It has zero credibility in this context and adds nothing to this article, which SHOULD be based only on facts. As it is now, about half of it is based on opinion and conjecture, and therefore it isn't worth reading. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of Alan Dershowitz's remarks is that Judge Irving Kaufman improperly had had ex parte communications with Federal prosecutors and the FBI while presiding over the trial of the Rosenbergs, stating among other things, his desire to sentence the Rosenbergs to death. This and other judicial malfeasance and prosecutorial misconduct do, in fact, lie in Alan Dershowitz's field of competence, so reference to his statement that the Rosenbergs were "guilty - and framed" should remain in the article - it adds the commentary of someone with unique qualifications to make those comments - and Alan Dershowitz is notable enough to have his own article here on the basis of his activity as a legal scholar and a defense attorney. loupgarous (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, "guilty, but framed" are not WP:WEASEL words. "Many legal scholars agree the Rosenbergs were 'guilty, but framed'" would be a clear case of WP:WEASEL because the words identify no reliable source for that assessment.
The actual statement in the article is "Distilling this consensus, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote that the Rosenbergs were "guilty – and framed."". It's a simple, declarative sentence properly attributed to Dershowitz, and within Professor Dershowitz's competence as a legal scholar at Harvard School of Law and experienced defense attorney to make. It is in the article with proper weight, and sums up the opinions of historians who have examined the case. loupgarous (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: