Talk:Jára Cimrman

It is so sad when people have no sense of humour...

Having read this discussion and being Czech I can only confirm that all of the fiction in this article is a pure fact. (And if you don't understand, read more Kafka! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.129.67 (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

Misleading information

Ok, so everything in the following three paragraphs:

• Czechs, their mentality and their hero
• Relationships with other nations
• It is often futile but Czechs never give up

is extremely misleading, wrong or simply untrue. Obviously it was written by someone who was trying hard to explain Cimrman's success as a national hero despite being a fictional character. However, the provided explanation is beyond ridiculous. Not only does it present false arguments of why is Cimrman so popular but it also contains several generalizations about Czech nation which are as ignorant as they can possibly get.

The true reason why the Cimrman is so popular has nothing to do with the fictional character itself. Much more important is the style of the whole comedy around him. It was unlike anything else at that time and in fact is still very unique to this day. That's what got Cimrman his popularity over the years. Typical characteristic of the performance was it was presented as if it was a scientific meeting of recognized experts. Cimrman was simply a subject of their research. This was often followed by what was told to be newly discovered piece of Cimrman's art (typically a short play). The comedy itself was largely based on showing the contrast of meticulous use of a scientific principle for studying something utterly idiotic, unbelievable and elusive as Cimrman.

The character became so popular because it has existed for very long and became a part of Czech culture. In many respects it was a pinnacle of "intelligent comedy" at that time. Moreover, it had occupied this spot for decades because the performers based their whole careers around researching this single fictional would-be genius. Some people were having a good time watching Cimrman plays when they were youngsters and still do today while being elders.

Over the years, Cimrman got beyond the stage. Countless Cimrman-themed rags and public practical jokes were performed both by artists themselves and their fans. These included raising a Cimrman's statue at a prominent square, placing a plaque of achievement on some well frequented spot, opening a museum in some village where Cimrman was told to spend his childhood, and so on. The idea of voting Cimrman at 2005 polls was yet another rag which simply so many people decided to go with it almost ruined the polls. This, however, does not give any credibility to a notion that Cimrman was or is actually percieved as a 'national hero'. If anything, he's percieved as a 'national claun who deserves to be praised as a hero for the sake of having a good time and pissing off those with no sense of humour'.

This is why i strongly suggest the whole three sections mentioned above are removed or significantly reworked because they are untrue or at best highly misleading. 90.179.190.200 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's all horribly wrong. It sounds like the reason for Cimrman's popularity is that he's a glorification of a Czech myth, while in fact it's anything but it. I was tempted to delete the whole section but I didn't really delete something which obviously cost a lot of effort on someone's part. Let someone more experienced in Wiki-editing judge.

--78.80.63.186 (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please guys do not strongly suggest something, just make the alternations you want. I dont mind if anyone alters, deltes or modifies anything what I wrote. The whole idea of Wikipedia, as I understood it, should be to reach consesnsus about the content so it reasonably reflects what is considered as being "truth" or "commonly accepted". Again please alter the text the way you see fit. I would be only glad. If you used your energy to modify my input it would be more constructive in my opinion. But maybe I just see another typical Czech trait here...just beating around the bush (as in the pub) but with no actual result and no movement forward. Realmasters (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm the one who wrote the post above yours.) No, it's not that. I'd love to rewrite your text but I don't actually know that much about Cimrman to write a Wikipedia text of my own. So the least I could do was to add a "disputed" tag and join the Talk page... still better than doing nothing, right? But anyway, thanks for your willingness to have your text rewritten. --46.13.21.100 (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup attempts 28.3.18

I've tried to cleanup this article to make the "history" section sourced and acceptable to wikipedia guidelines, I think it looks ok but obviously there's more detail and sourcing possible. The "Contributions" section, I believe is covered by guidelines about plots, ie. the information can be kept, but needs to be sourced to the specific play or film where the event was first mentioned. As I'm not Czech and haven't seen any Cimrman plays this would take me ages. So would be good to get some input from other editors on this.. In the meantime I will try to keep improving the article as I can, and add any sources I find in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Specific statements on the character’s attributions, please!

First, "Mr. Cimrman" is a fictional character of the "Cimrman Theatre" in Prague (Czechoslovakia), - cf. http://www.cimrman.at/list.php?l=4 ("50 Years Theater Cimrman", 2016, Czech).

But besides this, there is also an extensive Czech popular ascription poetry around Mr. Cimrman outside the "Cimrman Theatre" and without any reference to its stage programme. Hence this:

The name chosen - as well as its pronunciation (coming in emphasized German) - indicate, that the German surname Zimmermann is the model for the name of the fictious Jara Cimrman. Thus, these questions arise:

1. What relation to the Germans expelled from Bohemia since 1945 is addressed here?

2. Additionally there is the place of Cimrman’s supposedly last sighting in a location at the edge of the Jizera Mountains. This sighting is said to have happened in times short before the starting of World-War One. At these times, the Jizera Mountains Region was the German-Czech-Polish borderland. And it was a region of a widespread “folk fairy tale poetry”, which ranked around beet-counting male mountain spirits, who were said to have excessive physical powers, but would nonetheless easily become an every woman’s fool. This supports a reference to the childlike omnipotence fantasies of a “Nerd”, who considers himself omniscient, - but will always fail with everything related to the opposite sex. This said, and considering the culture of speaking about the fictious "Mr. Cimrman": Is "Mr. Cimrman" also a womanizer? Or is he exactly all of the opposite?

3. Considering the culture of speaking about Mr. Cimrman, which has grown since at least 1990: Can he get ascribed **just any** foolish characteristics, - such as the “Wolpertinger" or the "Elwetritsch"? Which ones not?

4. Which qualifications or social skills will Mr. Cimrman **never** get assigned to?

5. Considering the grown “Cimrman ascription poetry”: Could the character also occur as a **female** individual, so to say, as a “Mrs. Cimrman”? Or is this impossible, because all of the ascription poetry essentially focuses on specific patterns of masculinity and their ridiculousness? In what way?

6.Or, is the Cimrman ascription poetry - within in its essence - just about a specific perception a "German-", "Protestant-" or "Piefke Omniscience", which is experienced as ridiculous? In what way? ("Piefke" is a nickname for Germans with "zero humour habits", which is used in Austria. And it presumably also was in Bohemia before 1945.)

7. Considering the time from 1990 to presence (2018): Has there been a change in the grown ascription poetry, - compared to the patterns of ascription that were a popular Czech consensus until 1990? Which ones exactly?

8. There is a quite detailed article about "Jara Cimrman" in the Czech Wikipedia at https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1ra_Cimrman, - with extensive evidence, at least to those with a proficiency of Czech. Maybe there's something there that would answer some of the above questions.

Can someone do some English language writing to this? --91.36.248.147 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Answers to any of these questions are welcome on this article, as long as they are fully sourced and include no original research. Jdcooper (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Most of the questions look utterly irrelevant to the subject of this article... and I have no idea what ascription poetry is supposed to be in the context of Jara Cimrman --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)