Talk:David Greenglass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] grammar
" 1922 in New York City) was recruited into Soviet espionage by his wife, Ruth (Printz) Greenglass at the behest of his sister Ethel Rosenberg, and brother-in-law," shouldn't it be "at the behest of "her" sister? Take Care!--Will314159 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Artificial Diamonds?
The statement that he made "artificial diamonds" is unsourced. SYNTHETIC diamonds were first produced by General Electric during the early 50's, and required a great deal of industrial innovation which even G.E. was pressed to engineer. He lied about his involvement in espionage, it looks like this is another prevarication on his part. T.E. Goodwin 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ethel was David's sister, not Ruth's. --Fastfission 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Too neutral?
Can an article be too neutral? -Acjelen 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a specific complaint? --Fastfission 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- The final paragraph is too vanilla and safeguarded for the subject matter. One unfamiliar with the subject may have to read it several times before realizing its point. Nice additions would be: "He betrayed his sister" or "The United States put an innocent woman to death and allowed the real spy to live" -Acjelen 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the last paragraph is just fine as it is -- it is clear from it what the meaning is. Your additions are rather polemical conclusions, and not necessarily the inevitable ones. The only cases when things are "too neutral", as I assume you mean, is when they give unwarranted weight to one conclusion over another, but that isn't the case in the example you've given. --Fastfission 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, those sentences are rather polemical. I would still like to see more weight given to his lying and to the differences between Greenglass's testimony and evidence from Soviet sources. -Acjelen 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- How he could betray his sister if she was innocent? Betray isn't the right word. Let's change it to "calumnied". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.146.84 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Well, those sentences are rather polemical. I would still like to see more weight given to his lying and to the differences between Greenglass's testimony and evidence from Soviet sources. -Acjelen 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the last paragraph is just fine as it is -- it is clear from it what the meaning is. Your additions are rather polemical conclusions, and not necessarily the inevitable ones. The only cases when things are "too neutral", as I assume you mean, is when they give unwarranted weight to one conclusion over another, but that isn't the case in the example you've given. --Fastfission 15:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- The final paragraph is too vanilla and safeguarded for the subject matter. One unfamiliar with the subject may have to read it several times before realizing its point. Nice additions would be: "He betrayed his sister" or "The United States put an innocent woman to death and allowed the real spy to live" -Acjelen 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The information that Greenglass passed along was not very useful because he was a machinist- he happened to work on a very important part of the bomb but it was limited what he could pass- compared to what Fuchs passed. Greenglass did however get the information to the Soviets earlier than Fuchs sometimes. This fact is not clearly noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why the word "alleged" in the opening line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashujo (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
