Talk:Copenhagen (play)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
In the discussion of the play, shouldn't the very question that Frayn posits to have caused Bohr's abrupt return be mentioned? I think it should be included when the 'walk' is described. - Saket (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else confused about the past-tense used to describe the play? I thought that when writing about literature, you write it in the present-tense. When describing the play's plot, present-tense should be used I think. But in the 'historical controversy' past tense is fine. -Saket (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is more about the "historical debate" than about the play! Something needs to be moved, really. 86.131.92.151 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just read an 2-yr old exclusive interview in Croatian with (unfortunately deceased in 3/2007) professor and academician Ivan Supek (a student of Heisenberg, very respected so probably this is true) in the Jutarnji newspaper, it's here: Komentari Supek claims that when he visited Bohr (they were good friends), his wife Margretha secretly told him a different story: that Von Weizsaecker's idea (his father was Ribbentrop's deputy) was to convince Bohr to negotiate peace between Germany and UK! The interesting part is that both Heisenberg and Von Weizsaecker came to him wearing German military unifroms.
Good work, FastFission. DJ Clayworth 04:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I saw it twice a few years ago and have done some work with the historical material, hopefully I didn't make in errors though, not having it in front of me... --Fastfission 05:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I notice that there are now at least three articles with sections on the Copenhagen meeting: this one, Werner Heisenberg, and Niels Bohr. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to consolidate all this information in a single place (which would be easier than keeping three+ articles in synch, and would save the readers some work as well). The question is: what title should it be put under? (Does Wikipedia accept long titles like [[1941 meeting in Copenhagen between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg]]?) --Paul A 06:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think they can all be consolidated to the play page under a "historical controversy" section. I probably wrote the individual ones under Bohr and Heisenberg anyway before there was a page play, and each of the people pages could just be turned into "A 1941 meeting between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg has in recent times ignited significant historical controversy, as well as a Tony Award winning play. See Copenhagen (play)." Or something like that. --Fastfission 00:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- As noted above, the section about the facts should not be on a page about the play - they should be on a separate page - 1941 meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg or Heisenberg's meeting with Bohr, Copenhagen 1941 ? -- Beardo 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
