Talk:Niels Bohr/Archive 2

Inconsistency with Hafnium page
The Niels Bohr page states:

He predicted the existence of a new zirconium-like element, which was named hafnium, after Copenhagen, when it was discovered.

On the Hafnium page, it states:

Its existence was predicted by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869.

Did they both predict the existence of Hafnium? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.142.7 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the Hafnium article, which explains this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2013
If I could, I would edit the lede paragraph as follows:


 * Delete "philosopher and footballer" (because he is known principally as a physicist).
 * Delete the second sentence, "Bohr was a passionate footballer ..." (his footballing is covered sufficiently and appropriately in the Early Years section).

As it is, the article looks suspiciously like self-parody. "Abraham Lincoln, an American president and woodcutter ..." "Katherine Hepburn, an American actress and golfer ..."

To put it another way: Bohr's importance in the history of football is significantly less than his importance in the history of science.

JGleick (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting! I have noticed that biographies list all notable roles:
 * Benjamin Franklin: Founder ... of the United States... author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat.
 * George Washington: Founder ... of the U.S., commander-in-chief ... during the American Revolutionary War, presided [drafting the] Constitution.
 * "Woodcutter" and "golfer" do seem silly, but if Bohr was a well known footballer at the time (I don't know whether he was or not), shouldn't that remain? —EncMstr (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree with JGleick, considering other physicists bios like Werner Heisenberg or Albert Einstein. Their primary notability comes from their work as physicists though they had plenty of other notable activities, the first sentence focuses on that and the same should hold for Bohr. Even in the examples you give this isn't part of the first sentence. I suggest to modify the first part of the lead as such:


 * Niels Henrik David Bohr (7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962) was a Danish physicist who made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. Bohr was also a footballer, a philosopher and a promoter of research in science.
 * Cenarium (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed the distinction in sentence separation. I completely agree:  that version works well for me.  —EncMstr (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Cenarium (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, seriously, I must disagree. To call him a footballer anywhere in the lead paragraph is a little silly. The Benjamin Franklin example is different; he was a polymath, and all those different roles were significant. Niels Bohr was a physicist. Certainly he could also be said to have been a philosopher and a promoter of research in science.

His playing football gets sufficient prominence in the Early Life section.

(I mean, not that I have anything against football. It's certainly better this way than before.) JGleick (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've checked a few biographies and they don't give much weight to his footballing, so I'm not against removing it from the lead. FYI, you should be able to edit semi-protected pages now. Cenarium (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy to other editors, I would urge you, instead of engaging in a WP:BOLD edit likely followed by WP:CRD cycle, of an an article currently undergoing an A-class review to post a review on the review page.
 * Now as far as notability goes, Bohr is not notable as a footballer, although his brother, being an Olympian, is. That the two played on the same side indicates that Bohr played at the highest level, and had considerable renown. Similarly, Franklin is not notable as a musician.
 * As a philosopher though, the story is quite different. The are whole books on Bohr as a philosopher, and I fear that I might be selling his philosophy short with insufficient words on it. More than enough to satisfy WP:GNG as a philosopher. Just as Franklin is notable as a diplomat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely—thank you. (Please forgive any inadvertent discourtesy. I don't know the meaning of WP:BOLD, WP:CRD or A-class review; I did try to follow the instructions for suggesting a change.) JGleick (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bohr being a footballer is a minor detail compared to his main achievements, so mentioning it in the lede would be misleading. My favorite phrasing would be "...was a Danish physicist, philosopher and promoter of scientific research. He made foundational contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922."
 * I didn't read the whole article, so I wouldn't like to post a review. I guess it's fine if we reach consensus here and leave the editing to Hawkeye7 for now. Btw: You probably mean the WP:BRD cycle, not CRD. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  12:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Early life
I don't feel ready to jump into editing such a weighty article just yet, but under Early life, there's maybe room for elaboration on the 'teachers = friends of Bohr's father' aspect. In Manjit Kumar's Quantum Bohr states that he and his brothers listened to the discussions of the top Danish thinkers (including his teachers) at his own home which left "some of our earliest and deepest impressions." The passage given quotes from Pais (1991) pg.99 Hillbillyholiday talk 21:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just post your suggestions here or on the A class review page. I will add a bit more from Pais. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bohr Model
The article (ending with note 29) says: "New professors were formally introduced to King Christian X, who expressed his delight at meeting such a famous football player.[29]" This seems like an odd ending. Why would the King refer to him as a footballer, when in fact he wasn't a famous footballer? The reason Pais (the note) mentions it is because of the anecdotal nature of the meeting. The King mistook Niels Bohr for his brother Harald Bohr, who was in fact a famous footballer! When it's anecdotal it's because Bohr corrected the King, by saying that he must mean his brother - but a commoner - not even a professor - corrects the King (a breach of etiquette). The King, according to Pais, decided to give Bohr another chance by repeating the previous "famous footballer"-line (presumably in the hope that Bohr would catch on, and agree with the King and get on with the introduction). Bohr replies again, that the King is mistaken, and the audience ends on a rather awkward note. Now, my issue with this is, that the line in the article ending with note 29 is begging for an explanation (which I give above). Now, this would constitute a long text on something rather irrelevant. So my proposal would be to remove the royal audience completely, or at least remove the "footballer"-reference.--Nwinther (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Insitute of Physics
There's a line in this section that says "sizeable contributions were also made by industry and private donors, many of them Jewish." Who are these private donors? Why is it relevant to mention that "many of them" were Jewish? Who were these Jewish contributors? Is it controversial for jews to donate money to institutes of physics? Were there religious, political or racial issues revolving around the institute that makes jewish contributions especially noteworthy?--Nwinther (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quantum Mechanics
This section has a line "In 1914, Carl Jacobsen, the founder of the Carlsberg breweries," Carl Jacobsen wasn't founder of, but heir to, the Carlsberg Breweries. He did found "Ny Carlsberg" which later became part of the Carlsberg Breweries, but the segment is misleading. Also, the term "Aeresbolig" is wrong. In the article it's written as if that's the name of the mansion, as if Aircraft Carrier was the name of USS Nimitz. In reality it's "Aeresboligen" and means "(the) honorary residence". In other words it's not the name of the house, but the function of the house! Rather than continuing to write "Aeresbolig" I find it more proper to write "honorary residence" in the beginning and just referring to is as "house" for the rest of the section.--Nwinther (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe in the sentence as it is now one should use "æresbolig", without the "-en" since that ending has the function of a definite article, but the word is used in an indefinite context here. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  21:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

French and Kennedy
French and Kennedy (1985) is an edited book. The citations in the articles should really be to the authors of the articles in the book, not to the editors. I will be adding the references to the individual articles. I don't know if I'll have enough time this morning to fix the cites (i.e. the names that appear in the footnotes) as well, but, if not, I will leave a list here of the footnote numbers and the corresponding individual article references. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. I won't have time now until the evening but here is the correspondence between the footnote number and the correct name in the Sfn cite in the text. (In other words, footnote 14 will be , not  ) If you don't get time to fix it either, I'll do so in the evening.  Once, all the changes are made, we could even get rid of the French&Kennedy reference we are using now.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the list refers to this version of the Niels Bohr page. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * footnote 14 page 204:


 * footnote 18  page 6:


 * footnote 22  page 7 (same as footnote 18)
 * footnote 32 page 50–67:
 * footnote 32 page 385-391:
 * footnote 33  page 39-47:
 * footnote 34  page 43 : Same as footnote 33
 * footnote 43 pages 9, 12, 13, 15  Same as footnote 18
 * footnote 43 page 71-73:
 * footnote 44 page 61-64 Same as footnote 32
 * footnote 47 page 91-97 :
 * footnote 59 page 112-113:
 * footnote 60 page 101: Same as footnote 59
 * footnote 62 page 121-140 :
 * Excerpted from:
 * footnote 67 page 211-214 : Same as footnote 14
 * footnote 80 page 267-268 :
 * footnote 96 page 280-282 :
 * footnote 100 page 269 : Same as footnote 80
 * footnote 103 page 270 : Same as footnote 80
 * footnote 104 page 271 : Same as footnote 80
 * footnote 112 page 276 : Same as footnote 80
 * footnote 116 page 224 :
 * footnote 125 page 10-11 : Same as footnote 18

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Already done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Nit-picking
Is this really helpful: "akin to planets around the sun" It seems to me that actually Rutherford proposed that. And one of Bohr's contributions was that it is misleading to compare electrons to planets. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Rutherford did not propose that. Rutherford demonstrated that the atom consisted of a nucleus and an electron cloud around. Although others proposed planetary models, Rutherford did not propose a mechanism for how it worked or how it was arranged. In this, his model was much less complete that Thompson's, but he was right and Thompson was wrong. You're right about Bohr's contribution though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say he proposed the orbitals are discrete, and that it is like planets orbiting the sun. Propose taking out the planetary analogy. It might mislead readers. Beyondallmeaning (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For the information of the editors working on this article, user Beyondallmeaning was a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user and has also been indefinitely blocked . They should not have made any edits at all so all their comments may be disregarded.Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"This involved measuring the frequency of oscillation of the radious of a water jet."
What in the world is a radious? Did you mean radius? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A typo. The I and O keys are adjacent on my keyboard. Do you think it should be linked? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just figured it was one of those daft Britishisms I keep hearing so much about. { – Quadell (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem
"In 1921, the Dutch physicist Hendrika Johanna van Leeuwen would independently derive a theorem from Bohr's thesis that is today known as the Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem."

This does not make sense. She could not have independently derived the theorem from Bohr's thesis, only independently invent the same theory, which is what the Bohr–van Leeuwen theorem article says. This article also says that she developed it in her 1919 doctoral thesis. 1921 is the date of the journal publication. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox image
The image in the infobox is not what I expected to see when I visited the article. Could a caption at least be included to note the image's relevance? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just some strange vandalism. I've blocked the editor for 24 hours. – Quadell (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection
This article is a perfect candidate for semi-protection. It has been a preferred target for vandalism and other sorts of edits (such as by those with a religious axe to grind). Coldcreation (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What an excellent idea. Done. Semi-protected for 3 weeks. – Quadell (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "All warfare is based on deception", wrote Sun Tzu, but on the opposite, all I am trying to do is to restore the historical truth of Bohr's worldview, incorrectly reflected in the article as unarguably atheist. As you see, I'm grinding no axe, and I would appreciate if I weren't grouped with vandals that post spam links, especially considering that I have contacted both Coldcreation and Ninmacer20, who have destroyed my well researched edits, to resolve this in a friendly and honest manner. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Meeting with Heisenberg
I've re-phrased the "Meeting with Heisenberg" section; as written it was presenting Heisenberg's version of what happened as fact, which is a bit of a cheek in an article on Bohr. I think the best-known thing about this meeting is that we don't know what happened, and the text should reflect that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Bohr's Philosophy Edits
Dear Coldcreation, You have reverted my corrections to Bohr's Philosophy section. I have made every effort to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines, but if I have missed anything I would appreciate an openly voiced correction, rather than a silent deletion. As it currently is, the article grossly misrepresents a very important aspect of Bohr's life, and showing only one side of this issue violates every principle of honest representation. I would be happy to consider any specific and relevant criticisms on the matter, but for the integrity of the article and the quality of your own reputation it seems in your interest to undo this deletion for now. Thank you for your work. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)BT


 * If you would like to include your text in the article post it first in the Talk page for consensus. Nothing personal, but the article seemed better before your post. The quote you used was unrelated to Bohr (per your source link), and the long sentences were awkwardly composed. Certainly, you could come up with another way of saying what you wrote. Using shorter sentences may help, along with quotes directly related to Bohr's position on the topic. Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with the cited source, but it does also look like the claim made in BijouTrouvailles edit may be WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation that was cited is available here: http://www.edge.org/conversation/science-and-religion. Would you elaborate on the reasons as to why you think this may be original research?


 * Coldcreation, thank you for the quick answer and for moving the discussion to the appropriate place. As for the reply to your first reason: while I'm open to specific suggestions and will try to state the same thing better, is it really true that stylistic disagreements permit for deleting of content without waiting for a discussion, according to the guidelines? As to your second one, the quote is of Niels Bohr himself, I'm not sure what you mean by "unrelated to Bohr".BijouTrouvaille (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. See these guidlines, Manual of Style: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". Also, what you quoted was written by Heisenberg, not Bohr. And your interpretation of that text, no matter who wrote it, is irrelevant to the article. Coldcreation (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Claims of Bohr's Atheism be Modified or Removed?
This is a discussion about the following sentence within the article: "Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism."

Atheism is a Weasel Word
According to the article on atheism, a copious number of definitions exists for the term. They may include just about anyone: Lenin, Feynman, and Socrates, not to mention newborn children and Christians. Furthermore, this word is not only meaningless, it has strong cultural allusions, which mislead the reader to believe a thing which was not meant. Thus, in its present form it is an equivocation and should not be used without an explanation of what specifically is meant by it. Some author using a weasel word in his book does not justify it becoming a valid statement in Wikipedia, unless used as a direct quotation.

Unproven Statements
The referenced sources do not provide any sort of proof behind their claims relevant to this discussion. Bohr never called himself an atheist to my knowledge, and whoever called him that should have shown a detailed comparative analysis between Bohr's various statements and a rigorous definition of the word "atheist", if this labeling was to be considered a proof. Therefore, the sentence should be modified to reflect this important detail.

Opposites are Complimentary
If atheism is juxtaposed to theism, then the mentioned statement is directly contradictory to Bohr's personally expressed view on "deep truths". Quotations: "the so-called 'deep truths', are statements in which the opposite also contains deep truth." and "Contraria Sunt Complementia", at minimum, demonstrate the idea with precision, using nothing but primary sources, and must be mentioned next to the sentence in question.

BijouTrouvaille (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally find nothing "weasel" about the use of Atheism in the above statement. This is in opposition to Kierkergard's philosophy, which is explicitly religious - someone who does not himself believe in a divinity will be regarded as atheist when he disagrees with the basic assumption of divinity. The term atheist in that context requires no expansion. The variant of atheism is irrelevant to that conversation, the basic point is failing to agree on divinity, which is the essence of atheism (the basic term is "lack of theism"). In summary, I do not believe expansion on that theme was warranted, and would oppose it being added back. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. It seems to me that "the basic point is failing to agree on divinity, which is the essence of atheism" is only one of many definitions of atheism (going by the Wikipedia article), which is contradictory to many others, and I regret to say vague. I do not see why an objective article should follow your personal definition, rather than one of many others, and I also believe that you would find difficulty demonstrating that this is the definition used by the authors of the references. Finally I have made specific statements about why I called atheism a weasel word and, perhaps, addressing them specifically would aid your argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BijouTrouvaille (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is moot. We go by what reliable secondary sources says about Bohrs beliefs, not how random Wikipedia editors interprets various philosophical terms. If the cited secondary sources styles his beliefs "atheist" then that is how it is to be worded in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the elucidation on the rules and the correct links. If by moot you mean "subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty", then I agree with you, which is the reason the discussion is posted. However I do not understand how you arrived at your further claim. My point was made not about any one particular random editor's definition but about the meaning of this word out of context—it has none, and yet it was posted as an undisputed fact, thus making it precisely an equivocation. Even if the validity of the backing secondary sources is not disputed, they can not be the only criteria for a valid statement, otherwise one could put together any two arbitrary words contained in a book, or pull phrases out of context to make whatever claims one wished. This is why there are other guidelines in place, which are seemingly ignored here. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are questioning the definition of his atheism based on your own interpretation of Bohrs writings (primary sources). That is what makes this discussion moot. We use reliable secondary sources that complies with the policy of WP:Verifiability, and you will need to provide some reliable secondary sources that questions his atheism in order for your objection to have any relevance here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that you have misunderstood my arguments. If you read carefully enough you will see that they mostly demonstrate the nebulous nature of the word. Pardon the repetition, but the statement "Bohr was an atheist" is an equivocation unless "atheist" is defined. It is not my interpretation or opinion, it is a fact of definition by major dictionaries. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding BijouTrouvailles statement: "The conversation that was cited is available here: http://www.edge.org/conversation/science-and-religion. Would you elaborate on the reasons as to why you think this may be original research?".

Reply: Because as a personal recollection of events by Heisenberg it is a primary source. It can at best be used to source claims made by Heisenberg about Bohr. To make any general claims based on that primary source would be to introduce your own personal interpretation of events. We would need a secondary source that contains such interpretations and claims for them to be acceptable for this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, it makes sense. For this and some reasons mentioned by Ninmacer20 in a different conversation that quote no longer seems to fit well in this instance, perhaps it can be brought up in a different paragraph. However please see my reply to yours. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Original Research in Interpretation of Sourced Materials
I have finally gotten a chance to bring up the cited references verbatim. Below is proof that the controversial statement in question is nothing but original research. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Referenced citation 1
Stewart 2010, p. 416: "Part of this may have followed from Kierkegaard being a very avowed, yet rather circuitous proponent of a costly Christian faith, while after a youth of confirming faith Bohr himself was a non-believer."


 * Whence comes the atheism inference? The author only clearly states that Bohr was not a believer of the Christian faith, and that by no means entails atheism. This is a personal conclusion of the Wikipedia editor and is unfounded on source cited.

BijouTrouvaille (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Referenced citation 2
Faye & Folse 2010, p. 88: "Planck was religious and had a firm belief in God; Bohr was not, but his objective to Planck's view had no anti-religious motives"


 * First, this citation is irrelevant to the paragraph about Kierkegaard. Secondly, the author states that Bohr was unaffiliated with a religion. He clearly avoids the statement that Bohr did not believe in God, thus inferring atheism from here is taking onto oneself a responsibility that the author did not.

BijouTrouvaille (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Referenced citation 3
Aaserud & Heilbron 2013, p. 110: "Bohr's sort of humor, use of parables and stories, tolerance, dependence on family, feelings of indebtedness, obligation, and guilt, and his sense of responsibility for science, community, and, ultimately, humankind in general, are common traits of the Jewish intellectual. So too is a well-fortified atheism. Bohr ended with no religious belief and a dislike of all religions that claimed to base their teachings on revelations."


 * This is also unrelated to the topic of the paragraph, and just as in the last source, the author points to an absence of a religion. The "well-fortified atheism" grammatically belongs to "the Jewish intellectual". The authors may have tried to lead the reader to conclude that Bohr was a "well-fortified" atheist based on the last sentence cited and Bohr's belonging to the Jewish intellectual community, but such a conclusion does not belong in Wikipedia, according to the rule against original research.

BijouTrouvaille (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Further Action
With both the logical fallacy of the claim as it is and the clear evidence of liberal interpretation of secondary sources in view, I see no other choice but to remove the statement in question, replacing it with the direct citation from reference 1. It is the only source that pertains to the paragraph and citing it directly should prevent any careless, unsupported conclusions.

I would correct it to be the following way:
 * ...disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy.[73] "Part of this [disagreement] may have followed from Kierkegaard being a very avowed, yet rather circuitous proponent of a costly Christian faith," comments Richard W. Peterson, "while after a youth of confirming faith Bohr himself was a non-believer."[ref]

Comments, suggestions? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 'non-believer' and 'atheist' are practically synonyms, the change you want to do is pointless, it seems you are heavily invested into the disassociating N. Bohr and term 'atheism' using any pretext you can find, and not into the improving the article. Mpov (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Mpov, thank you for your opinion, although it is incorrect. "Non-believer" in this case is part of a context, and is not at all synonymous with "atheist". What is pointless is accusing each other of unprovable ignoble goals, such as that I'm trying to disassociate Bohr from atheism or that you are trying to advance atheist propaganda through logical fallacies. I would rather us to stick to specific arguments supported by proof, and to come up with an honest and precise presentation of Bohr's philosophical views. If you still believe you are correct, how would you prove that your point of view is valid to be presented in this article? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The citations given in the article are not (in my opinion) considered "original research" since they are cited by biographers of Bohr. Remember, Wikipedia says that original research is when "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (you can read more about it here: No original research). It would be considered original research if a Wikipedian user typed his own opinion in an article that is not cited by any reliable source or by misusing a source. There are other citations that I could give you that state the Bohr was an "atheist": 1.) Simmons, John (1996). The Scientific 100: a rankings of the most influential scientists, past and present. Carol Publishing Group. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-8065-1749-0. "His mother was warm and intelligent, and his father, as Bohr himself later recalled, recognized "that something was expected of me." The family was not at all devout, and Bohr became an atheist who regarded religious thought as harmful and misguided."

2.) Larry Witham (2006). The Measure of God: History's Greatest Minds Wrestle with Reconciling Science and Religion. HarperCollins. pp. 138–139. ISBN 9780060858339. ""Bohr's atheism, the counterpiece of Einstein's monotheism, ... was more affined to traditional Far Eastern philosophy,” according to Stent. ...The young Bohr thus lived in two worlds, but mostly the cultural Christianity of the Danish middle class. As a young man, he had read Søren Kierkegaard, a fellow Dane and a Christian existentialist from the nineteenth century, with some enthusiasm. But he finally faced a religious crisis, and by the time he went to England to study physics, the idea of God had lost its appeal. The aim of life was happiness, he wrote his fiancée, making it impossible “that a person must beg from and bargain with fancied powers infinitely stronger than himself." ... In his only published paper on the topic of religion, Bohr spoke not of deities and doctrines but of psychological experience."

You can argue against these citations, however, I don't see much of a point of getting rid of the term "atheism". Would you like the word "atheism" to be changed to "non-believer"? I wouldn't mind you adding that Niels Bohr's quote on religion from Heisenburg. However, I feel that this topic isn't really worth debating about (since one good citation should suffice, let alone 3, 4 or 5). Try to contact other Wikipedian administrators on this talk-page if you feel that you need more evidence on this issue of original research. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for your patience. Ninmacer20 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Ninmacer20 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ninmacer20, I am afraid that you didn't accurately read my arguments, else I haven't stated them clearly enough. As it is, the first half of your reply argues points I have already covered, and the first sentence is an outright straw man (undoubtedly unintended). To summarize: while I did argue against the usage of the term "atheist" as an equivocation, I have also demonstrated that interpretation of the sources brought up was erroneous.

About your question, "Would you like the word "atheism" to be changed to "non-believer"?", it seems that by itself this would be even more of an equivocation than "atheist". However, the word "non-believer" in the Stewart citation is part of a context that gives it a specific meaning of "Non-believer in Christian faith". The way I see it, since there is only one author that makes a statement about the nature of disagreement with K., it would be most graceful to present this statement as it is—as a direct quote.

About your other two citations. Unlike the first three, these two clearly opine that Bohr was an atheist, and if you wanted to make a paragraph that would present different opinions on Bohr's views on metaphysics and religion I think they would fit well there. Perhaps that same paragraph can contain the quote from the conversation with Heisenberg on religions and one with Einstein on deep truths. I just think that identifying "Non-believer in Christianity" with "atheist" or a nebulous "non-believer" is hardly appropriate, and even if there are other authors claiming that Bohr was an atheist, lumping all these different ideas into one statement about a very complex philosophy, is an inference not made by any of the secondary sources you have brought up, thus again original research.

I appreciate your patience as well, and I hope you will take no offense at my arguments against yours, especially since we seem to share a goal: to produce an informative and accurate presentation on one of the greatest figures in the history of science. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. For now, just wait for other users on this board and see what they have to say. This may take awhile.Ninmacer20 (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Friend, I have ordered the 2 other books you mentioned and must again bring up an inaccuracy in your reading. Witham quotes Stent saying that Bohr was an atheist. The author makes no such conclusion, in fact, his book book isn't even a tertiary source for such a statement. There aren't 3,4, or 5 good sources to call Bohr an atheist, as you've said, but so far only one bad source: Simmons' "The Scientific 100". "The reliability of a source depends on context", state the guidelines, and the context here is history and religion, neither of which are acknowledged areas of expertise for Simmons, who publishes mostly on the topic of investments; perhaps that explains why he makes no effort to support this claim. If you want to stake your reputation of objectivity on such low quality of information, I won't try to stop you, but I ask that even in your own interest you do so explicitly and in its own space, rather than hiding it within a different topic altogether.

It seems that no one else has any more objections to removing this contentious sentence. It has been a long time and a thorough debate, and I have demonstrated from every perspective the unsupported nature of the statement I argue to change: by the rules of Wikipedia, by the rules of logical argument, and by clear common sense. Ninmacer20, I truly appreciate all the research you've done for the article, but don't you think it is time to fix this one part so obviously erroneous already? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much tired of having this debate. Anyway, I can understand your concerns. Based on my other readings of Bohr, I think it pretty safe to say that Bohr was not religious or that he believed in a personal God (based on these sources):

1.) Niels Bohr: Atomic Theorist (2 ed.). Infobase Publishing. 2008. p. 37. ISBN 9780816061785. "Niels had quietly resigned his membership in the Lutheran Church the previous April. Although he had sought out religion as a child, by the time of their marriage he no longer “was taken” by it, as he put it. “And for me it was exactly the same,” Margrethe later explained. “[Interest in religion] disappeared completely,” although at the time of their wedding, she was still a member of the Lutheran Church. (Niels's parents were also married in a civil, not a religious, ceremony, and Harald also resigned his membership in the Lutheran Church just before his wedding, a few years later.)"

2.) "I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far." - Statements of Bohr after the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Beyond (1971) by Werner Heisenberg (from Wikiquote).

Anyway, would you like me to replaced the word "atheism" with "non-religious"? By the way, I don't see what is wrong with the word "non-believer". Even Einstein refer to himself as a "deeply religious nonbeliever". Being a non-believer does not necessary mean being an atheist. I'm only saying this because the only citation that states about Bohr's disagreements with Kierkegaard refer to Bohr as a "non-believer". Ninmacer20 (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, if you are tired of this debate you can always concede to replacing the original statement with the direct quote, as I ask, otherwise you are taking the responsibility to carry on until an understanding is reached. It is a complicated work for both of us, but what other civilized way can there be?

"Non-believer" of the quote means "Non-Christian", within the context. Also notice how carefully Peterson puts it: "Part of this may have followed...", and contrast that with: "...stemmed mostly from...". We don't know what these disagreements were, historians have only guessed and may never know, and it is wrong to mislead the reader to believe otherwise. I fail to see what is wrong with quoting Peterson directly, but if you dislike that stylistically for some reason, how about we replace the statement with this: "Part of it may have stemmed from Bohr's disagreement with Christianity [Stewart ref]"? I don't think that in this case "may have followed" would be a weasel phrase because there is no other way to express the highly hypothetical nature of this conclusion yet still relay the idea while remaining true to the source. Is that acceptable to you? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it is your interpretation that "non-believer" in the context strictly means "non-Christian". And your suggestion is based on yet more personal, and quite frankly far-fetched, interpretations of the sources. Read together with the other reliable sources provided about his irreligiosity, it is quite acceptable to use "non-believer" in the broad sense here. We cannot base a change of terms in the text on your perception of what "stemmed mostly from" suggests. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your frankness. There is a rule against synthesis, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Also there isn't a "broad sense" for the word non-believer as it is a negation of a word without a broad sense. If you disagree, all that means is that we do not have a consensus on my latter suggestion, and I do not care to argue for it at this point. Ninmacer20 and I are in agreement to replace the original sentence with a direct quotation. Do you also agree? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BijouTrouvaille, I'm willing to accept your advice in referring to the author and his quote within the article itself. Just wait until there is a consensus so that other Wikipedia users are satisfy with the edit as well. Remember, Wikipedia is made up of a community of users that allows almost anyone (with evidence) to have a say in their criticism. Sometimes, I had to wait for more than a month until I could requested a similar edit like yours as well. Thank you for your patience. Ninmacer20 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. On the subject of patience, I can certainly wait, although "more than a month" sounds very arbitrary, and for 10 days nobody has so much as expressed interest in the discussion. Would you please be more specific as to what event exactly you are waiting for? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The "event" that I mean is to wait for other Wikipedia users to agree to the change on the edit. For example the Wikipedia user, Saddhiyama, made a recent comment (a day before you made this message) about his/her issues with this topic. We have to finish this debate with him/her (and possibly others) before we can proceed onward. Even if we both agree to a change in the "Bohr's disagreements with Kierkegaard" sentence, we must allow others to have a say before we can make an edit. I'm not saying we should wait for another month but if any other user doesn't make any other concerns in next 10 days, we can assume that most users consent to our wishes.Ninmacer20 (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * At this point, I have no idea what's even being proposed. The original objection was using the term "atheist" in the context of not believing in the divine, and the complainant wanted finer resolution on atheist because of so many different subgroups of atheists. It seemed a hobby-horse for the original complainant. In the context it's not necessary, and if you or BijouTrouvaille want to change the text here, you'd better describe exactly what you intend to do and document it. At this point whatever you intended to do has been lost in the back-and-forth where many people have objected to various proposed changes. The fact that nobody has responded does not mean you have consensus, but largely that the topic is being ignored after many of us have had our say. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ninmacer20 and I, who maintained most of the debate agreed on the proposal which you can find at the beginning of the section titled "Further Action". We wish to simply quote the source as it is. User Saddhiyama voiced a concern about an alternative idea I suggested, but I do not insist on it. How would you recommend to alleviate the problem of the content being lost? One thing to consider is that the hobbyhorses and the back-and-forths here mostly represent detailed work done to clarify the subject rather than empty burbling, and if someone objects without learning the arguments already made, a repetitive conversation may result. Isn't the premise of Wikipedia that only those willing to learn the subject can have a say in what's being posted? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The specific proposed text above in "Further Action" I don't believe is acceptable. The article is about Bohr, not Richard Peterson. Quoting him directly in the article is specious, Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary and point to references with the text, not a scholarly reference itself of who says what. The use of the term "atheism" as a synonym for "non-believer" (unspecified whether religion or deity) is generally accepted, outside of specific religious arguments which use finer-nuanced descriptions. If you change "atheism" to "non-believer status" or something similar, I would regard that as weasel-wording. The references you provide above pretty much agree that Bohr had little use for religion. And for a two-word change between what is generally regarded as synonyms, this entire discussion would have been a tremendous waste of everyone's time.
 * However, the point I most wish to make is that simply running a huge discussion and boring everyone to death does not equate to having achieved consensus. Several participants have been blunt in pointing out that this appears much ado about nothing, it does not need to be changed, and the fact that they have not commented further does not mean they agree with your stance or will not object to it (they already have). Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, the argument is not about nothing, and if you are bored, or do not think that this is important, then you are opting out of the debate. Above all, Wikipedia is not a majority censorship or a totalitarian regime, therefore as long as I provide valid arguments you either take on the responsibility to counter them, or you forfeit your voice in this question.


 * You are providing the same argument again and again. I have provided my opinion that changes you are proposing are pointless and that your rationalization about "unsupported" Borh's atheism is just a pretext, real reason being your personal preference, driving you to spend ridiculous amount of time and producing endless stream of text reiterating the same point in order to change one word(!) you don't like in the article. Don't expect other people to get similarly invested and waste time in this crusade of yours, answering every comment. I think it is clear that I oppose your proposed changes here as pointless, POVish and weaselly, even if I don't reply to your new comments repeating the same arguments again and again. Furthermore. repeating same claim ad infinitum is not a "debate" and people here have no obligation to prove to you that they are not camels (in this case that "non-believer" and "atheist" are synonyms in this context). You don't have a consensus and if you want a discussion, then provide some other argument than "there is no word 'atheism' in the source". Mpov (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy on civility contains all the arguments that you need at this point.


 * One point I have made in every possible way is that the statement "Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism." is synthesized and completely unsupported by sources provided. If you do not wish to quote the scholar directly, then this statement should simply be removed until a replacement is agreed upon. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point you seem to be missing - you've gotten considerable feedback against your proposed modification. The fact that you don't see many people actively commenting, does not mean you have achieved consensus. It means you've gotten the feedback and most other people don't continue to talk without anything new to say. Writing kilobytes and more kilobytes of arguments does not manufacture a consensus, it simply means other editors ignore you until you do something they have to revert. Just talking by yourself (or with one partner) does not achieve the goal of persuading anyone that you are correct.
 * The statement you are concerned about is blunt and probably could be wordsmithed - but the underlying basis that Bohr was not religious and disagreed with a religious philosopher on that basis does not really seem to be in question. Most of the reaction you have gotten stems from what seems to be your dragging an agenda unrelated to the article in here. Wikipedia articles are not the place to enforce an ideology or ride hobby horses, it appears that your objection is to the word "atheist" itself, in spite of the fact that it appears to accurate in this case. Your stated objections seem to be abstruse points largely irrelevant to the article itself, and don't belong here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Out of your derogatory lump of ad hominems and straw man arguments I can extract that that you are convinced that wikipedia does not allow direct quotations, though did not support your claim with corresponding policies. So here is the situation: The contentious statement is unsupported by sources as it is, Saddhiyama is denying the interpretation of simple context, and you are denying a direct citation. Then the statement has to be removed, until we can resolve this difficulty. Do you have any (non-derogatory, impersonal, and supported) objections to that? BijouTrouvaille (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have an objection - the source provided (Stewart 2010, p. 416: "Part of this may have followed from Kierkegaard being a very avowed, yet rather circuitous proponent of a costly Christian faith, while after a youth of confirming faith Bohr himself was a non-believer.") supports the statement about Bohr's atheism. There is nothing to be removed, changed or resolved. Mpov (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your objection has been specifically criticized and thoroughly answered. Since you are ignoring all the arguments that have already been made, your statement is nothing but casting of a vote, which is does not influence the content of Wikipedia. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it hasn't. The only argument you provide (repeatedly) is that in the given sentence "non-believer" means "non-Christian" and not "atheist" (what, did Bohr adhered to some other religion?), which is your personal interpretation tailored specifically to allow you to argue for the weaselly removal of word "atheism". Mpov (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Learn some respect. Until you do, you are nothing but a troll. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement Removed
I've removed the unsupported statement. If someone has a new source that unambiguously proves that "Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism", they may discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BijouTrouvaille (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that in removing the "unsupported statement", you also removed the reference which cited "...Bohr ended with no religious belief and a dislike of all religions...". Usually one doesn't delete references in removing unsupported statements. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find anything of that sort in the guidelines, but if you suggest a specific steps to preserve the references, I would oblige. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ninmacer20, you have undone the deletion by stating that "references are provided", yet the references provided do not support the phrase. The phrase has to be removed and it is not my responsibility to replace it. I did offer two other possible solutions, and they were rejected based on arguable grounds. You are welcome to continue the debate where it was left off, if you wish, however, I see no reason to keep the unsourced statement in the article in the meantime—it has been debated thoroughly. BijouTrouvaille (talk)

The reason why I undid your edit was because I wanted to rephrase that sentence based on the citations given, not to remove it. I also didn't want to re-add those citations again. However, in order to rephrase that sentence, I must have approval from the Wikipedia community first. For example, I'd at least rephrase the sentence (that you previous removed) into something like this: "Bohr's biographer, "Insert Biographer's name", believes or infers Bohr's disagreements of Kierkegaard's philosophy due to Bohr's being non-religious." It's not a good sentence, however, this allows other users to (at very least) improve or replaced on the sentence that was given. I hope this debate is resolved as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience. Ninmacer20 (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with the procedure, although you may have noticed that it has come to a stalemate. I can not think of a better way to rephrase than, "Bohr's biographer Peterson suggests that Bohr's disagreements with K. stem from his disagreement with Christianity." That would be the most inclusive and minimal interpretation of the text that does not ignore the context. This would be the most inclusive because Buddhism, atheism, and Deism fall into the "disagreements with Christianity" category. Peterson assumes that the disagreements were on a religious basis, but what could they be? They were *at least* about K's Christianity according to the author, and I doubt that we can come to an agreement on any more than that.

I do not think "non-religious" is correct here because K. was not religious in the sense of belonging to an organized religion, and they both were probably fairly religious in the sense of Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling", or maybe not, we can't know that one; there are also other senses. I understand your intention, but I do not see how this word can fit here. Non-believer also seems bad. Out of context this word can be used to present a very specific dogma that has little if any epistemological value, but in any other context the word takes meaning from it, and we are taken back to the question of which one. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Would there be any problem (from either side of the discussion) with simply replacing the word "atheism" with "non-believer"? Or rephrasing it something like "but mentioned that he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy[74]; Bohr's biographer Stuart suggested that this disagreement stemmed from Kierkegaard's advocacy of Christianity, while Bohr was a non-believer.[ref Stuart]" ?  Djr32 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with either statement from both you or BijouTrouvaille, they are both fine. However, I'd like to see other Wikipedia users commented on this issue. The reason being that are some other users that may disagree/reject with our statement. We should at least gain approval from one administrator before we make any changes to the article. Ninmacer20 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Admin opinion is not needed—nor even recommended—for disputes of this type. Figure out the best way to address The Five Pillars and go with it.  Admins do not have any special insight or weight compared to that which other editors might have.  —EncMstr (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no problems with Djr32's version, save a minor thing in that Richard Peterson is the biographer, with Stewart being the editor who collected this and other essays into a book. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay good, we seem to be in some agreement with Djr32's rephrase sentence. Djr32 could rephrase the sentence if he/she wished. Ninmacer20 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really. For whatever reason, there seems to be a effort to remove the word "atheist" in association with Dr. Bohr. I'm not sure why, but for someone who has "a dislike of all religions", the term atheist would normally be used. Using "non-believer" is weasel-wording, presumably to get past someone's specific dislike of the term. The other comment is that generally Wikipedia articles make a statement and reference the source, rather than stating "so-and-so said", which is usually used to indicate disagreement with the position stated.
 * The other comment I'll make is that there has not been a consensus here. It has simply been one individual pounding away at an issue so long most people have stopped paying attention. He hasn't convinced anyone I've noticed. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Blatant disrespect of other editors by using personal attacks, spurious arguments, and posts designed to provoke, completely disregarding the rules of conduct here at W., clearly mark user Tarl.Neustaedter as a troll. Please search for his name on this page for many examples of this. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Pot, Kettle, Black? This isn't the first time in this discussion that you've met disagreement by making personal attacks (including calling another editor a troll). Other than by you, this isn't personal. It's been a commentary on tactics - one of the failures of crowd sourcing in general is that fanaticism tends to trump consensus by outlasting everyone else. Here, you've made your point, you've met disagreement, and have simply iterated on arguing. Several times the claim has come up that once people stop arguing consensus has been achieved. That is not correct, and that tactic is unlikely to work here.
 * You have pointed out that the statement is overly blunt and could be made more precise. But substituting "non-believer" for "atheist" and signaling disagreement with the statement by phrasing it with a caveat (so-and-so says) isn't the appropriate answer. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion was only related to how to rephrase the sentence about why Bohr's views on Kierkegaard's work changed over time - to me the Peterson/Stewart sentence quoted above is phrased as Peterson advancing a theory on the reason that this change occurred, so it's fine to phrase it that way in the article. I would absolutely be in favour of making a direct statement on what Bohr's religious views were as an adult, and there seems to be sources to back it up, I'd just suggest that it should be a separate sentence to one discussing his views on a 19th century philosopher.  Djr32 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Article changed as agreed. To preserve references, I'm pasting the original below.

Bohr's disagreements with the philosopher mostly stemmed from Bohr's atheism. BijouTrouvaille (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Niels Bohr Sephardic Heritage
It's important to list Niels Bohr as a Sephardic Jew in terms of ethnicity and heritage, not in terms of religion. Understanding his heritage as a Sephardic Jew is an important part of understanding his Danish heritage, insofar as the Sephardic diaspora had a cultural center in Glucksberg for over 300 years. In other words, it's important to show that he was of a very old line of Spanish Jews who arrived in Denmark after the Expulsion of the Jews of Spain. Traditions in science within the Sephardic community would have influenced his cultural experience as a scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephardicScholar (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like excellent material for an article on Sephardic Jews and their impact on Danish society. But it has little to do with Niels Bohr as a person, which is what belongs in this biography. At most, it might deserve a "see also" to an article Sephardic Jews' impact in Denmark. But you should write that article first. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Because Sephardic culture also has an epicenter in London, with influential roles throughout the British Empire, it's plausible that his Sephardic heritage prompted his study at Victoria University. Indeed all other biographies of this great Sephardic thinker mention that he came from Sephardic stock, including The Men of Manhattan: Creators of the Nuclear Era By Jeffrey Strickland and a separate online biography from McGill University. It was indeed important enough to list on those biographies and would certainly give context and definition to the character of this great thinkers mind, just as the Zionist and other Jewish contextual components of Albert Einstein are a part of our understanding of his contributions. His being Sephardic is a matter of ethnicity, his genetics, his community, which are important for individuals researching this great man to know and understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephardicScholar (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It sounds like you have material for an interesting article. It just doesn't belong in this article. Or Einstein's article. It belongs in its own article, with a "see also" from here to that article.
 * As an aside, I fixed a formatting error for you in the above paragraph. Starting a line with a space does bad things to text formatting, as you probably noticed. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs in this article because it has been cited in other biographical statements per the lineage of his mother, Adler, which gives definition to his Jewishness that should be clear and not vague. Why does his Jewishness belong in this article but any point eschewing vague statements per such Jewishness deemed in your opinion incongruous with this article's content? This is a simple biographical statement found in all other biographical statements once can find from highly reputable sources like the National Science Foundation and McGill University. The more biographical information pulled from these sources, which give insight into this great scientists origins, just as any other biographical description (some of which on Wikipedia even go into the grandparents' lineage) -- the better the biography on this page will be. Otherwise, I will delete any mention of his Jewishness, provided that the specific context of such Jewishness is described in other biographies -- most likely as a point of clarity per family communities, not to convey any religious or social cause on his part. Even the word Sephardic simply means Spanish or Spaniard in Hebrew, which is a geographical clarification. There should be no issue in stating that he was a Spanish Jew, just as any other article about a Jewish person on Wikipedia states if the person was a Polish Jew or a Bulgarian Jew. The country of origin for a Jew is often a complex thing, especially with Sephardic Jews who typically found a secondary mother land after the expulsion. For this reason, someone like Isaac Disraeli could be described as a British-Sephardic writer. Sephardic being the underlying tradition and scope of Jewishness and the British prefix giving further detail as to the relocation of the particular line after the Expulsion. This is a point of accuracy, to give a more accurate and clear picture into Bohr's Jewishness from a simple biographical perspective. There is no agenda herewith, merely a point that should be clear and accurate if the distinction of "Jew" should made at all in discussing Bohr's life. Some months ago, I didn't notice Niels Bohr's page here as stating that he was Jewish at all. Perhaps we should remove this qualifier overall -- otherwise, it is indeed more accurate to give geographical context to his Jewishness. Sephardic is not a "variant," that is a strange way of putting this diasporic term. Spain is a country just as Poland is a country. Why can we not mention the country from which the tradition of Jewishness he had in his lineage stemmed? Righting a great wrong on your part would be conceal his maternal family's origin in Spain to keep his image more Danish or more Ashkenazic, boosting the image of the Ashkenaz in light of the great wrongs done to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SephardicScholar (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

US citizen or expatriate?
Did he ever receive US citizenship? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mosquito flight
Forgive my ignorance, but I got the impression years ago the Bohr was in fact quite reluctant to be spirited to the UK to aid British/Allied research efforts during the war. In fact, I thought that he had to be practically forced into the Mosquito. Can anyone enlighten on this, and if so, can it be included in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bohr was aware that the British government wanted him to come to Britain at once. He delayed a few days in order to make his personal appeal to the King Gustav V to allow Jewish refugees to stay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just how exactly were they supposed to 'force' him into the Mosquito when they were at a civil airport in a neutral country where all he had to do was shout for help to anyone nearby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.200 (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He wasn't forced; he went voluntarily. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2016
My suggestion is that Niels Bohr not be categorized as an athlete. Perhaps a scientist? 75.134.106.2 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He is already listed as a 20th-century physicist, Danish physicist, Danish nuclear physicist, Quantum physicist, Scientist from Copenhagen and Theoretical physicist. There is no contradiction in also categorising him as a footballer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Niels Bohr. 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/20130522110143/http://www.cond-mat.physik.uni-mainz.de/~oettel/ws10/bks_PhilMag_47_785_1924.pdf to http://www.cond-mat.physik.uni-mainz.de/~oettel/ws10/bks_PhilMag_47_785_1924.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalbanken.dk/C1256BE900406EF3/sysOakFil/Danmarks_penge_2005_ENG/%24File/Coins_Banknotes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021120546/http://www.nba.nbi.dk/papers/introduction.htm to http://nba.nbi.dk/papers/introduction.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Niels Bohr. 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/20100825003955/http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNUK/NotesAndCoins.nsf/side/Denmarks_banknote_series%21OpenDocument to http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNUK/NotesAndCoins.nsf/side/Denmarks_banknote_series%21OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Niels Bohr. 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/20141129033630/http://www.politietsregisterblade.dk/en/component/sfup/?controller=politregisterblade&task=viewRegisterblad&id=3308989 to http://www.politietsregisterblade.dk/en/component/sfup/?controller=politregisterblade&task=viewRegisterblad&id=3308989
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603072504/http://www.minorplanet.info/MPB/MPB_40-1.pdf to http://www.minorplanet.info/MPB/MPB_40-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018
As an Knight of the Elephant in Denmark, he should be referred to has "his Excellency, Niels Bohr" and have the suffix "RE" this is in keeping with other Knights such as Maersk Mc-kinney Moller. 87.49.190.121 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I did not add the "His Excellency" portion because I could not quickly verify that a member of the Order of the Elephant is entitled to this honorific. If you can provide a source then we can look into adding it. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:HONORIFIC: In general, styles and honorifics should not be included in front of the name except when an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it. This is not the case with Niels Bohr.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Excessive links
Things sometimes "creep in" so would someone look at the "Further reading" and "External links" for possible integration or trimming? 3 to 5 (four to five as possible exceptions) seems to be a "reasonable number", and of course there can be exceptions, but 16 links between the two sections starts looking like link farming. Otr500 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2018
In the introduction: "Bohr mentored and collaborated with physicists including Hans Kramers, Oskar Klein, George de Hevesy, and Werner Heisenberg." His PhD student Lev Landau should be added to the list, as one of the most famous physicists of the 20th century (see his wiki page) and a Nobel laureate -- far more famous than all mentioned save for Heisenberg. 2601:182:D041:3E0A:7DFD:B483:D2A0:D934 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Lev Landau was not his PhD student; he spent four months in Copenhagen in 1930 and 1931. I can't think of any work of significance that they did together. His main achievement in Copenhagen was his paper with Rudolf Peierls. If you can suggest something that they worked on, I will add it to the article. Landau's own article needs work; if you could imnprove it, that would be appreciated.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Copenhagen Interpretation
Astounding and unacceptable that there is no section on (indeed, not even a mention of) the Copenhagen Interpretation, and more generally no discussion at all of the foundations of quantum mechanics. ---Dagme (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019
Under § Later years, there is a reference linking to Bohr's coat of arms:

This link is now dead, and should be replaced with an archived version:

Thank you. 104.246.223.200 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

George de Hevesy isn’t put in as a link
In this Niels Bohr article I realized that the name George de Hevesy isn’t put in as a link when this article mentions his name when he was searching for element 72. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryPotter102 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * George de Hevesy is mentioned six times in the article with three of them linked. That may already be too many, as our manual of style (specifically WP:REPEATLINK) discourages excessive linking. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed one link; he is now linked once in the lead and once in the body, which are considered separate.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add tag Category:Jewish Danish scientists to this article so that it appears on the Danish Jews by Occupation: Scientists page. Thank you.
Please add tag Category:Jewish Danish scientists  to this article so that it appears on the Danish Jews by Occupation: Scientists page. Thank you. Deborah Dinzes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9c00:1a4:c8a5:781c:59d8:d7dc (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding Bohr's philosophy
As Karen Barad and others and write, Bohr directly did NOT embrace Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and Heisenberg himself admitted his philosophical misstep with this categorization within what is called 'the problem of the observer', or the 'psycho-physical' (Pauli/Jung) also problem. Instead Bohr proposed 'Indeterminacy' which is an ontological category rather than an epistemological one, saying essentially nature is what is fundamentally indeterminate. Uncertainty refers to the agential observer's capacity, and is an epistemic category. The differences are profound. Bohr's 'philosophy' section could use some serious attention as he was known as a physicist-philosopher' rather than merely having had developed the atomic model, and his philosophy still resonates through many fields and disciplines today.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joldt (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to expand the philosophy section. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Niels Bohr - LOC - ggbain - 35303.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 7, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-07. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
Add in the infobox:

73.162.91.15 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * module=
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Has nothing to do with his notability, and it's generally unimportant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree. His football playing is an identifying characteristic. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No harm if we mention it 158.123.57.63 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023
The section Early years says: "the second of three children of Christian Bohr, a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and Ellen Bohr from the wealthy banking family." That's not quite true. I therefore propose, if someone has a good source to support it with, something like "the second of three children of Christian Bohr, a professor of physiology at the University of Copenhagen, and Ellen Bohr, née Adler, from a wealthy Jewish banking family." (Or without the "Jewish"; but it was probably relevant in the society of that time and would certainly be relevant later). 151.177.56.148 (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  02:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

One minor misprint
Regarding one of Bohr's sons, there is an error in spelling of the word "institution". It was wrongly typed as "instution". 37.151.190.5 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – thanks! Favonian (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)