Talk:R.U.R.

message: I added a reference to the BBC Radio 3 dramatisation from 1989. Available commercially, but someone deleted it. Curious as the lost BBC versions are noted, and the commercially available Hollywood Theater of the Ear version  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, and it was a mistake.  I somehow thought that you were deleting that material instead of adding it.  I've reverted my deletion, with my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptations

message: Has anyone verified that the original subtitle of R.U.R. is Czech, as the article suggests?  I'm pretty sure that, in the Czech original, the subtitle was in English as "Rossum's Universal Robots" (which ties into the thematic importance of Americanism, Fordism, etc.).  I have a 1940 copy of the Czech original in front of me in which this is the case - it's not a first edition but I suspect the first edition would be the same.  This claim should either be verified with a footnote or modified. Sindinero (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great catch, and very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Cites for all of these claims, please. I think you're confusing later usage with Rossum's initial usage. but, in any case, we're going to require citations from reliable sources to support these claims, if they're ever going to see the light of ay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inaccuracy re: subtitle 

message: The robot in the current Carl's Jr. robot TV advertisement has R U R on its upper left torso. I haven't examined the video closely to see if it's visible in the ad, I spotted it about two weeks ago on a "life size" cardboard standup of the robot at a Carl's Jr. restaurant. I did a google for it and came up with zilch, apparently nobody out there has noticed this, or if they have they are incurious as to what the letters might mean, or if they are curious they have no clue it's an homage to this play. Bizzybody (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl's Jr. robot advert. 

message: The description of Act II includes the statement "In secret, Helena burns the formula required to create Robots." In this same paragraph, it references both the original (human) Helena, and an experimental Robot Helena. Which Helena burns the formula? Depending on which it was, the story is very different.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.166.202 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot, Act II 

message: In my family tradition, I used to hear from my grand dad Antonin (the teacher who was in a very close family relation to father of Čapek siblings Helena, Karel & Josef),it was the painter and co-author of some Karel's works, Karel's brother Josef who actually coined the word robot and the name R.U.R. 
So the idea to use the Czech word 'robota' meaning forced labour of servants, slaves etc esp in Middle Ages comes from Josef rather than from RUR author Karel who it is often attributed to. 
Karel himself was in favour of other words such as 'automaton' etc etc.
The root of the word 'robota' (in Czech grammatically of feminine genus) is pan-Slavonic and it is still alive in Czech as well as Russian, for instance, where it is used in the word robotat translating 'to work' and it belongs to one of the most frequent&popular verbs in this prime Slavonic language nowadays. 
To cut this short: the idea to name fictious (for how long any more?) beings with humane features comes most likely from Josef, Karel's brother and its root is one of the most popular ones in Slavonic languages these days. 
Hope this may be of some help to understand how this all came about - maybe for you, Robots of the Future too!!! --Capekm (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting story, but, unfortunately, completely unusable on Wikipedia, because it is not verifiable, is not supported by a citation from a reliable source and would be considered to be original research.  Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article itself does state that the word originated with Josef, not Karel, based on a RS...Sindinero (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, my mistake.  It looks like Capekm's family tradition turns out to be verifiable!  Mazel tov! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Family tradition

message: I deleted this section again.  It said:
The book was influential early in the history of its publication.[citation needed] It was translated into the Ottoman Turkish language (Turkish written in Arabic script) as early as 1922 and was printed and published by the state press. [14]
I did so for these reasons:
*The only "other language" discussed is Turkish.  The section as is basically says "It was translated into Turkish", which, by itsef, without discussion of other languages, is not particluarly encyclopedically interesting
*Although it says that the book was influential, there are no citations provided to support this.  The words are clearly there as a pro forma introduction to the Turkish publication information, in order to present an encyclopedic rationale.  Without sourcing, however, it's just empty verbiage.
What this means is that factual content of the section is that the book was translated into Turkish.  While this would be a significant fact in and of itself in the Turkish Wikipedia, in the English Wikipedia it is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "In other languages"

message: 1.Please try to ask yourself the following question: "Am I being a racist?" You mention the additional entry "In other languages" do not include any other language than Turkish and jump to the conclusion that it must be deleted. However, if you see the necessity for additional languages, the rational thing is to try to add one or two yourself. Please try to contribute; it's everyone's major responsibility.
2.Please refer to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers which suggest to all of us, but particularly to those more experienced, the following among other things:
(i)If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake (e.g., forgetting to put book titles in italics), try to correct it yourself: do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in a sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. If you use bad manners or swear at newcomers, they may decide not to contribute to the encyclopedia again.
(ii)If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well.
I do not wish to add more suggestions, you can see the whole by yourself.
3.My remark on the influence of the book speaks for itself and may even not need a citation: The book was translated into Ottoman Turkish, Turkish in Arabic script, in a short time after it was published, a language into which not many translations of 20th century literay works are made in the 20's !
4.You suggest that the Turkish translation of a book needs mentioning only in the Turkish version of Wikipedia. Your idea is flawed in at least points:
(i)All versions are Wikipedia are destined for humanity and if you say French version is for French people, Turkish version is for Turkish people, etc. then the whole concept of Wikipedia will collapse. Everyone has a right to refer to any version of Wikipedia they prefer and not any one of us can deprive others from knowledge.
(ii)If we follow your rules to not refer to/explain/give information on translations other than English (for books written in a language other than English), then do you realize that more than half of the entries in Wikipedia on relevant subjects will have to be reduced in length or deleted completely?
Regards,
THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I stopped reading your response after your first sentence.   Don't pull the "racist" card to justify your bad editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: In other languages

message: RE this sentence:
"Unlike the modern usage of the term, these creatures are closer to the modern idea of cyborgs or even clones, as they can be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves."
Wouldn't that make them androids rather than cyborgs?SLEPhoto (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of terms in description? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on R.U.R.. 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/20131223084729/http://www.booksplendour.com.au/capek/rur.htm to http://www.booksplendour.com.au/capek/rur.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) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum's Universal Robots).[1] However, the English phrase "Rossum's Universal Robots" had been used as the subtitle in the Czech original.[2]" I'm not sure what is meant by having the "however" in this sentence. --Khajidha (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "However" 

message: Okay, being anglocentric in the English Wikipedia is unavoidable, and in science fiction topics even more than in others, but still this is undue:
In 1920 Central Europe it surely introduced the new word rather to German and French, and thence to English, not directly (see etymology in the Wikitionary) — besides, of course, to Czech, from which it derives as a neologism. Might be good to re-check the source in this regard, and, if needed, complement this statement with sourced conformation of this point.
Also:
Are we sure it didn’t meet success also in Asia and South America? Did it please discerning thespians much more in Chicago or L.A. than in Buenos Aires or Tokio? (Ditto concerning sources.)
And here:
Do we know which? Tuvalkin (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglocentric 

message: I read RUR forty years ago. I remember a nutrient bath, but none of this factory business. Is that from a film adaptation? If so, say so. Athanasius V (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished reading it for the first time.  Every scene is at the factory. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrient bath. 

message: In the section 'Čapek's conception of robots' is an image captioned "U.S. WPA Federal Theatre Project poster for the production by the Marionette Theatre, New York, 1939". 
It's shown here: 
But there's another image here:  which names Remo Bufano (no WP page) as director. It looks like that the artist for that one was Charles Verschuuren (no WP page), a NY magazine illustrator. 
(Remo Bufano had been a mime with the Washington Square Players 20 years earlier. Is it possible he directed another production of RUR at the same location?)
I've tried =at length= to source the name of the artist of the first image, to no avail... (there are thousands of WPA images.) 
Clearly it WAS associated with the Marionette Theater... also hard to find info on.  
Furthermore, it *seems* (from the limited info in the article) that the Swedish Cottage Marionette Theatre (NYC Central Park) was not hosting performances until 1947.
Any help with ID'ing this stuff or locating/navigating the details would be much appreciated!Twang (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image correct??