Talk:R.U.R.

Adaptations

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by JohnCD. Just closing this to remove the tag. Mkativerata (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) → R.U.R. — Or possibly to Rossum's Universal Robots. But it seems that the "shortform (longform)" representation found in some sources is intended to communicate two names (or a title and a subtitle), not one. Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose move - It's really more of a title and subtitle, but they almost always go together. Take a look, for instance, at the Internet Broadway Database listing for the play here, or these listings on Amazon. We have a redirect from R.U.R. already, and there's no need for the "(play)" disambiguator -- and, as far as I know, no one ever refers to the play as "Rossum's Universal Robots", so that would be an inappropriate title. Where it is now is just fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting why you posted those links - they seem to support my position, that "(Rossum's Universal Robots)" is not part of the play's title - it's just an explanatory tag or subtitle, which is sometimes given, and sometimes not. And since it could equally well expand the title of the film as the play, it wouldn't be a good disambiguator even if Wikipedia did that kind of disambiguation for abbreviations.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted them because, except in situations where a shortened title is needed (such as on the title of an anthology of several plays), in English, they are always together. It's not a disambiguator, it's part of the title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They are always together except when they're not, certainly. But clearly as a title and subtitle, not as a title that includes a parenthetical. Sorry, I now realize that the film title just redirects to here, so I'm amending the proposal to move to simply R.U.R. (and to move the (hardly needed) page RUR to RUR (disambiguation)).--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for these changes. In English, both parts of the title go together. I continue to oppose an unnecessary move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As is clear from the links, they are not "parts of the title" - the title is "R.U.R.", and the expanded form is a subtitle, which sometimes (but not always) accompanies the title. Our present article title is therefore somewhat misleading. --Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, exactly the opposite is clear from the links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. It looks to me like the parenthetical is a subtitle, not part of the actual title. See the 1939 movie poster or the second link on Amazon. Powers ^T 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's also the 1935 Czech movie poster and the fact that the Czech Wikipedia article is titled just "R.U.R.". Powers ^T 12:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia shouldn't include subtitles in its article names, especially not if they can be mistaken for disambiguators. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been posted on the talk pages of these WikiProjects: Science fiction, Theater, Czech Republic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, Ghits data: "Capek R.U.R. +'Rossum's Universal Robots'" 362,000 versus "Capek R.U.R. -'Rossum's Universal Robots'" 182,000, which means that they don't go together as invariably as I stated above, but the full English title "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)" is used 2:1 over the abbreviated title "R.U.R.". (And, yes, I agree that "R.U.R." is the full original Czech title. It is not, however, the full English title of the play.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, after a bit of consideration, as long as the bolded title in the lede gives the full title "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)", it doesn't much matter if the article title is the same -- "R.U.R." is fine. (I take as precedent Dr. Strangelove.) So I withdraw my objection and support the requested move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly support long overdue, in fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factual inaccuracy re: subtitle

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)

Okay, since the project gutenberg Czech text linked to in the article also has 'Rossum's Universal Robots' (in English) as the subtitle, I went ahead and changed it, since this is an important aspect of the play and the previous version of this paragraph was mistaken and I can find no citation or Czech edition of the play that has the subtitle in Czech. Sindinero (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Great catch, and very interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the original English subtitle was "Rossum's Universal Robots". My understanding, however, is that the original title more properly translates contextually as “Rossum’s Universal Worker” or ““Rossum’s Universal Labourer”. The article entry on the origin of the word supports this view as does the story itself - Rossum produced biological creatures to operate his factory, not mechanial 'robots'. The Russian word for worker,‘rabotnik’ comes very close and is almost identical to the English word 'robot.' Mark Evans, 05 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.5.187 (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Carl's Jr. robot advert.

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)

Plot, Act II

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)

Family tradition

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well I accept your objection I cannot find a written article by my granddad from Police on the Metuje - or Metau - this is a Czech/German border area, a topic covered by Karel and regrettably by the Munich conference later on. I am but a Wikimemeber of no standing and I do not dare to discuss such basic matters such verifiability of an entry. To my mind we do not spam Wikipedia if there is a memory - the tradition - left somewhere withing talk. In this case it turned out to comply with this condition, so the better. To get information seems to be harder than to obliterate it - in most cases. Thank you for commenting - I have a lot to learn on the niceties how this most perfect sourcce of quality and independent information works. I beg your patience, dear Wikicolleagues.--Capekm (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"In other languages"

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)

In other languages

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)

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)

I suggest you be objective - my editing might be "bad" for you, but you are not justified in any of your explanations. I suggest you read my explanations. This is not a tug-of-war we're playing here for edits. I believe you are not justified in your reasons for deletion of my added information; you should not deprive Wikipedia users of any information that might be useful.

Again I suggest you to read my explanations for your reasons and please kindly refer to the Wikipedia guidelines I referred to already: Not any one of us is here to supervise or criticize other contributors; if my edit is not "good" for you, please try to improve it. Please contribute in a positive way.

To date, I have contributed to the English, Turkish and French versions of Wikipedia by not only editing but also by creating new articles (entries); and I am new here, only 2-months old. I try to be positive, factual, kind and polite. I again refer you to the Wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers which is written as a guideline for all users of Wikipedia.

Rgds, THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of terms in description?

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)

"Save the Robots"

Hello. I have updated the page with a new musical adaptation of R.U.R.. There are at least 2 outside references to the musical's existence on 2 different websites within Wikipedia parameters of acceptance. Plenty of pages list items "scheduled to be released" or "debut" or "set for release" "premiere", so I don't understand the difference. The updated adaptation will be added to this page either way whether it's now and then change to reflect past tense after or just after the first performance. ie, "Jersey Boys is an upcoming 2014 American musical biography drama..." Best. NaturalWon (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)NaturalWon

I removed it per WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL, and you edit warred to keep it in. If you don't understand aomething, then it might be a good idea to actually listen when a seasoned editor tells you something, instead of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum, as you did. You've now been templated for edit-warring, and for using Wikipedia as a promotional medium, and I restored sourced information about a previous production that you removed, as well as the word "debut" since it obviously is not its debut. BMK (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand you spell erroneously when you are unnecessarily unprofessional. Since YOU know nothing about this musical or checked it's sources that were linked, this musical has a completely new book, not LOOSELY based, and it adapts R.U.R.'s characters and story, therefore it is a debut and completely new work unto itself apart from a previous show written by different authors. Please explain "tantrum"? Still not answered per inquiry asking PROMO, CRYSTAL difference from, "Jersey Boys is an upcoming 2014 American musical biography drama..." . Actually, YOU have been templated for Edit-warring. Again, this is a NEW book and NEW author. NaturalWon (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)NaturalOne

It's obviously not by "different authors", but a re-written version of the previous show. That show was written by "Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render", while this version, according the NYMF, has "Book by E. Ether; Music by Rob Susman; Lyrics by Clark Render". With two of the four authors the same these are obviously related, but our readers won't know that, because you -- for the fourth time - reverted my version (which included all the previous information and your new information) before I could add the current authors. So we're lying to our readers when we say it's a "debut", because "developmental readings" are, by definition, not official performances, but part of the working process, and, in any case, some version of this piece has been done before. (I work in the theatre, so don't try to sandbag me, I've been doing it for longer than you've been alive.)

You clearly want it to say "debut" because that's much better promotionally, which, I surmise, is the only reason you're interested in having this entry in the article. That's why I templated you, because you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're here for promotion only. BMK (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And, ah, don't know what you mean by saying that I've been templated for edit-warring - there's no such template on my talk page, but there is one on yours, put there by Regents Park, an admin. BMK (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows what's going on here. This is what was in the article before NaturalWon edited it today:

• An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., and featuring and the music of 80's rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on 11 May 2012.

Here is what NaturalWon changed it to:

• An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, will debut in Developmental Readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival July 2014, based on R.U.R., and featuring the music of 80's NYC art-rock band Hagatha. The show is an updated musical adaptation of R.U.R. with most of the same characters and plot details.

Here is the compromise version I came up with:

• An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on May 11, 2012. The play is schedule to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.

As I mentioned above, I was about to go in and add the current authors to this, when I found that NaturalWon had reverted again. Here is his current version:

• An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots is based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha. The book-musical is scheduled to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.

I'll let others judge which is the most appropriate for an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If NaturalWon would stop blindly reverting, this version could be a suitable compromise - if he's really here to contribute and not just to promote this production:

• An electro-rock musical, Save The Robots, written by Ed Katz, Rob Susman, George Tsalikis and Clark Render, loosely based on R.U.R., featuring the music of the 1980s New York City art-rock band Hagatha, premiered at the Players Theatre in Manhattan, New York City on May 11, 2012. A new version of the play, more closely based on R.U.R., with book by E. Ether, music by Rob Susman, and lyrics by Clark Render, is scheduled to be in developmental readings at the New York Musical Theatre Festival in July 2014.

That keeps the mention of the obviously related previous production, and makes it clear that the new one is revamped and more tightly based on Capek's piece. The WP:CRYSTAL/WP:PROMO aspect is minimized. BMK (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"However"

"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)

Anglocentric

Okay, being anglocentric in the English Wikipedia is unavoidable, and in science fiction topics even more than in others, but still this is undue:

it introduced the word "robot" to the English language

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:

R.U.R. was successful in its time in Europe and North America.

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:

By 1923 it had been translated into thirty languages.

Do we know which? Tuvalkin (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The Word robot was hardly 'new'. It's the common Russian word for 'work'. 86.87.191.180 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nutrient bath.

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)

I just finished reading it for the first time. Every scene is at the factory. —Tamfang (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Image correct??

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: [1]

But there's another image here: [2] 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)