Talk:Britské listy

2010 Spring Cleanup

I Petr 08:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)]] have removed 'list of topics' from the article, following the consensus of participants. Such a list may boost ego of BL editor(s) but " is alien to the international reader". Reference to such a list is sufficient. I am removing the list of the topics AGAIN. I do hope we do not having an 'edit war' here.

Since commenter |81.101.153.249] warns (see below) "Britske listy will sue" .. I am documenting why the designation "high-class debating forum", beside being un-encyclopedic, is not appropriate. I am removing that self-description and I am asking BL, staff and fans, not to use Wikipedia for adverts and self-congratulations. Petr (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some of the illiterate rubbish on this page. Beware, if you include unsubstantiated slander, Britske listy will sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.153.249 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Years have passed and nothing has been done. It is stupid to compare an independent, widely-read (200 000 IP adresses per month) internet website, which criticises everyone with a corporatedaily newspaper Právo, which is connected with untransparent, manipulative business circles in the Czech Rep. Whoever wrote such rubbish is just badly informed and politically biased.

This article is very badly written. English leaves a lot to be desired. The whole context is alien to the international reader. Judgments in the article are biased and totally related to Czech "right-wing" values, which look bizarre in the international context. No one knows, for instance, what "Právo" is, and, anyway, it is highly questionable whether Britske listy is as "left-wing" as Právo. Právo is a corporate publication, representing the interests of businesses, run by former Communists in the Czech Republic (hence for instance criticism of larger Czech firms is banned there) - Britské listy has no corporate allegiance.

There are assertions in this article, which, apart from being primitive, are also factually wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.153.107 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. The people who have tried to describe Britské listy obviously do not know the publication properly and have listed mostly irrelevancies. While of course it would be wrong to allow the view of Britské listy itself in the editing of this article, maybe someone should impartially and INTELLIGENTLY consider its contribution to the public debate in the Czech Republic, over the years.

Why doesnt the article, for instance, mention, that it was Britské listy that opened the debate about the American radar in the Czech Republic, TWO YEARS before the issue was taken up by the Czech media? I have now, since two years passed and I first suggested this, included this issue in the entry as well as info about some other subjects BL have introduced on to the Czech scene.

http://www.blisty.cz/art/18859.html

Bad show. Wikipedia is obviously a really feeble project. http://www.blisty.cz/2004/7/12/art18874.html

The list of a number of other topics that Britské listy has introduced onto the Czech media scene, often LONG before the Czech media started dealing with these, is here.

http://www.blisty.cz/2006/7/31/art29549.html

in Czech: http://www.blisty.cz/2006/7/31/art29548.html

Why doesn´t this entry deal with these facts?

Bad show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.153.107 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some suggestions as to waht needs to be cleaned up in this article. I am reading the style manual, and I did some corrections, but there is a lot of rules. So, advice is solicited. Petr 08:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say everything. An overview should be enough, there's no need for list of articles. The internal wars between original editors may be mentioned, ther received some popularity, more than most of the articles. Pavel Vozenilek 03:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice. I agree. Long list of articles were apparently aded by Dezidor, takin form Mr. Čulik's list of successes. There are not objective. I will replace them by reference and a comment. Petr —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)