Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|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. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.|
|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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia'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 talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
"...true Talmudic tradition..."
Quote from article; "David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg's brother and key prosecution witness, in true Talmudic tradition, recanted his testimony about his sister's typed notes."
Can anyone understand the reference here? It makes absolutely no sense to me and seems POV at the very least. Is it possibly just antisemitic? Either way it's hard to understand what the writer was really going for. Or am I just overlooking something? I do admit that could be the case because I am confused! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've deleted it. The user has been making anti-Semitic edits.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Details of execution
I admit the details of the execution are rather grisly, even though they are brief. However, the gory details of the Rosenbergs' execution is one of the major elements of their story -- two possibly innocent civilians being executed by one of the most heinous and inhuman methods available. Please decide whether the execution details should be included in the article. -- Modemac
Suggestion for further research: I recall reading something about the opening of Soviet archives, and there being some information regarding the Rosenbergs' execution/crimes. I've also read that Julius took 3 tries & Ethel 5 - but I don't have a good source on that. And did you mention that they left behind 2 young sons? ~ender 2003-04-02 23:45 MST
- Two possibly innocent civilians? How much more evidence has to be provided concerning their guilt before idiots stop claiming that the Rosenbergs weren't clearly guilty? And the fact they left behind two young sons is completely irrelevant. Many executed criminals leave behind innocent family members; they should have thought of that before they passed secrets to the Soviets. The seeming implication that this somehow makes the Rosenberg's execution that much more unjust is farcical. Passing secrets to the Soviets endangered everyone living in the United States(I will not bother to mention the other countries, as the case was tried in American courts). Capital punishment has long been a potential penalty for espionage in this country, and it still is. It was heartily deserved in this case.
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(aged 35) (both)
| date_of_death = June 19, 1953(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.
USa and USSR allies as of when?
The article states that the USA became the ally of the USSR after it was attacked by Nazi Germany in June 1941, during operation Barbarossa, when the US itself only entered the war as a result of Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Whilst the US supported the USSR via Lend-Lease programs, I am not sure if people in Britain or the USSR would regard the USA as having been an 'ally' until it formally entered the war. I'm willing to be contradicted though, if anyone can cite evidence to the contrary JTzara (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to chage it to entry of the US into WWII, I can't really formally argue. Though personally I think that even if Allies in the capital letter sense of the Grand Alliance of WW II, the US became an ally of both the UK after it declared war on Germany in 1939, and the UK [¿USSR?] after it was invaded in June 1941. Lend-lease (extended to the USSR in Sept, 1941) was essentially a giveaway. And it had nothing to do with lending in the normal sense of that word. The US was to lend the UK ships, and then get them back at the end of the war, perhaps from the bottom of the ocean? Lend the USSR aircraft and get them back after "use," certainly obsolete and used up, if not full of holes or blown to pieces? Bizzare. Lend-lease was a political way that FDR got around congress in order to pretend to be neutral. It made no business sense, and is not a relationship that one can imagine any country would ever doing with other truly neutral country. It was not the sort of thing the US would have done with Mexico or South America. It made sense only to help friends (the UK) and to help allies (the USSR) in the struggle against German and Japanese aggression (a bit like the mercenary Flying Tigers of the end of 1941, which was a U.S. gift to China, clandestinely financed with loaned money). The USSR was not a US friend. Ally is a much better and more descriptive and true word. An ally of necessity. SBHarris 03:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I rather do want to change it! It's not just a question of the semantics regarding 'ally' and 'friend' or 'friendly country'. The passage doesn't even reference Pearl Harbor, and seems to suggest that the US declared war on Germany altruistically as a result of operation Barbarossa. I think this matters in this article as the relationships between the USSR and the US are important- one would not want to give the false impression that the USSR was spitefully spying on a benevolent and supportive US, biting the hand that fed it, when the picture is more complex. Furthermore, for many outside of the US, America is not perceived as an ally until it joined the war, regardless of lend lease, and the suggestion that it was on a par with the other Allies during this time is borderline offensive to those who fought and died during this period. Lend Lease is loved and remembered in the US, and it's impact should not be underestimated, but in the UK and Russia it is regarded (at least now if not at the time) as rather a lame half-measure that bankrupted these countries whilst boosting the US economy and fell well short of actual involvement. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the sides in the conflict are known as the 'Allies' and the 'Axis'. Whilst one might conceivably consider Spain for example, as an 'Ally of the Axis', or 'Friendly to the Axis', to regard it as _part_ of the Axis seems just plain wrong. likewise, I would suggest that the US was 'friendly to the Allies', but not an 'Ally' until it actually declared war as a result of being attacked. 'Ally to the Allies' seems clumsy, as I agree does 'Friendly to Russia'. I would suggest something along the lines of
- "Following the assault on the USSR by Nazi Germany, the US provided substantial support to the Soviet Union, leading ultimately to Germany's declaration of war on the US after the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor brought it into the war, putting the two future superpowers on the same side of the conflict. However, suspicions regarding Joseph Stalin's long term intentions remained high in the U.S. government, certainly outside of Roosevelt's immediate circle, and the Americans jealously guarded their research on the Manhattan project from all the other Allies, including France and Britain."
- To be a pedant, I don't even find this very satisfactory, as it was the UK (specifically Churchill) who was suspicious about Stalins long term intentions- Roosevelt was more inclined to sideline British concerns in the belief that Russia could broadly be trusted. However, I assume that this was not the case generally in the US administration, so I think the above is more or less satisfactory.JTzara (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have simplified the passage. I don't see why we need to summarise the history of the war here. For the purposes of this article, the two countries were wartime allies, but the USSR was not involved in the Manhattan Project. (The bomb was kept secret from the British as well, but British scientists like Fuchs were involved.) I have also deleted information about Oppenheimer etc because it doesn't relate to the Rosebergs.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just posted this note to Lalalacomeon's talk page:
Hi, I just reverted your edit, because it seems to me you made significant changes to sourced information without any explanation. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello. A couple of editors have reverted your edits at Julius and Ethel Rosenberg as good faith but improper changes. Your persistence indicates you may not be editing in the best of faith. I am restoring the original text and request that you not make any further edits without engaging on the talk page. Thank you.