Talk:Jára Cimrman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is so sad when people have no sense of humour...
[edit] Disputed?
Why?
- The article can simply be biased, and express viewpoints as facts.
- It does not seem to be biased. Hard to say, if this topic can be biased at all.
- While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
- There are two facts here. Basic info about life of a fictional character and basic info about creation of this character. It does not seem to be biased.
- Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others.
- Is any viewpoint presented here at all?
- The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
- Or is it like this?
- The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
- Name of the fictional character is not ok?
- A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives
- There is no analysis here.
- Miraceti 20:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Something strange with the main NAME. In my opinion it should be "Jára Cimrman", as the original Czech version and this article should be immidiately deleted. As it is now, it just looks like some clumsy Romanic version of the name...--Mohylek 00:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, "Jára da Cimrman" is a form that appears in the seminars, so it's hardly deletion-worthy… --Sabik 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody who knows it add the correct pronounciation of "Jára Cimrman"? -Rfrohardt 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fiction/spoiler
I'm adding back the "fiction" tag, as there's obviously a mixing of fact and fiction going on. I'm not sure where there are "spoilers" in the text, given that there doesn't seem to be a specific plot to spoil, but I'll leave it in just in case. --Sneftel 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is clearly stated that everything written here is about a fictional character. The very first sentence says: "Jára Cimrman is a Czech fictional character...". The second paragraph says: "Although he was originally meant to be just a caricature of the Czech people, history, and culture, he became an immensely popular character of modern Czech folklore". And the third paragraph: "Cimrman is a major character or the putative author of a great number of books, plays, and films."
- Is there anybody, who might still hesitate, whether Cimrman and everything about his life is fictional or not? Or does it have to be stressed in every single paragraph?
- As for the spoiler: All the plays with Cimrman are based on pretending that he is a real person. The fact that his fictionality is revealed in the very beginning of the article is the reason why the spoiler should be there. Jan.Kamenicek 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article states when Jara was born. Obviously that's fiction. The article states that there was a Greatest Czech contest in 2005. That's almost obviously true. The article states that there are "Cimrmanologists"; it's not clear whether that's true or not. Did people actually create hundreds of silhouettes of the guy or not? The article doesn't say. This is the sort of thing that the fiction tag was intended for. I don't think the fictionality needs to be stressed; I just think the divide between fiction and nonfiction needs to be made explicit. There's too much interleaving to easily follow. --Sneftel 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at the article and admitted that you were right especially on the Cimrmanology part. I added there some info and I think I solved the problem at the same time. I tried to solve the silhouettes as well. I think that the Czech contest part is clear enough. Jan.Kamenicek 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it looks a lot better now. Thanks! --Sneftel 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I had a look at the article and admitted that you were right especially on the Cimrmanology part. I added there some info and I think I solved the problem at the same time. I tried to solve the silhouettes as well. I think that the Czech contest part is clear enough. Jan.Kamenicek 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article states when Jara was born. Obviously that's fiction. The article states that there was a Greatest Czech contest in 2005. That's almost obviously true. The article states that there are "Cimrmanologists"; it's not clear whether that's true or not. Did people actually create hundreds of silhouettes of the guy or not? The article doesn't say. This is the sort of thing that the fiction tag was intended for. I don't think the fictionality needs to be stressed; I just think the divide between fiction and nonfiction needs to be made explicit. There's too much interleaving to easily follow. --Sneftel 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"All the plays with Cimrman are based on pretending that he is a real person." I fail to see how that would actually spoil one's enjoyment of these works. -- Ned Scott 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion originated on Wikipedia Talk:Spoilers.
- It was a little rude to edit the article at this time, though changes are easily enough reverted, and you can sort it out later. There's a spoiler tag at the very top of the article, but the first sentence says he "is a Czech fictional character created by Jiří Šebánek and Zdeněk Svěrák. He is presented as one of the greatest Czech playwrights, poets, composers, teachers, travellers, philosophers, inventors, detectives and sportsmen of the 19th and early 20th century." In my opinion the first sentence renders the spoiler tag redundant. If a character is fictional, then knowing anything about him will tend to destroy the illusion that he is real, at least in those who are unable to suspend disbelief. But maybe I've got something wrong. In your opinion, what function does the tag perform here? --Tony Sidaway 09:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good question, and I am not sure I understand the contradiction you point to. I'll try to answer and explain, nevertheless. When media or authors (in Czechia) talk about Cimrman (for example when new play by Sverak and Smoljak comes out), they usually never mention that he is fictional, just start talking about that it was discovered that he was actually first at something (because he was Czech), but for some reason, he was forgotten. So you may not believe that, and Czech people of course understand the mystification, but if you would be a foreigner, you could believe he is for real for a moment. I think that people may prefer to find out themselves that he is not actually possible, with all the silly things he did (which justifies the spoiler, if you are not against spoilers in general). In Wikipedia, it's apropriate to mention in the lead that he is fictional, no question about it; so this makes an interesting problem where to put the spoiler then. I am not claiming the perfect solution for the spoilers in the lead problem, I am just pointing to complicated example. Samohyl Jan 18:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think he could be compared to Forrest Gump, although Cimrman is much more well known to Czech people, and they can relate to him better. I guess the authors of Forrest Gump don't appear from time to time on TV and do not tell us about the next big thing, like in the case of Cimrman. Samohyl Jan 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the Forrest Gump comparison I made:
- In the fiction, both Gump and Cimrman have important influence on real events, although they use different means, and the outcome is different. Gump has disabilities, but eventually succeeds through determination, hard work and luck. Cimrman is a hard-working genius, but lacks common sense and luck, thus eventually fails or is forgotten. This can be understood as an American (optimistic) and Czech (skeptical) view of American dream.
- Gump is more-or-less confined into one work, and the work has a disclaimer about the fact he is fictional. Cimrman has several authors, and the works or media, as far as I know, don't have a disclaimer that he is fictional. So someone who doesn't know anything about Cimrman could in theory come into contact with some work about him, and mistake him for real, which is unlikely in the case of Gump.
Samohyl Jan 07:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)