Talk:Lidové noviny

Political orientation

In order to avoid edit wars, it is better to discuss and modify only when reached an agreement. Therefore I deleted the political orientation. The sources seem to be contraddictory. The Wien International classifies it as conservative. This is plausible, also considering that it is owned and published by the same company (MAFRA), who publishes the recognized as conservative newspaper DNES. The sources you mention are: 1.in Czech, and since this is the english wikipedia, sources in English prevail. 2."internal" that means possibly non neutral, since they are seen from the internal Czech point of view. What can be seen by a Czech as "liberal" may be recognized abroad in a wider perspective as conservative (the German die Welt, f.e., is considered conservative). The definition "liberal" means everythin and nothing. In an American context, f.i., it symbolizes a rather left-wing position, in European contexts is rather some moderate right, but must be distinuished in economic, social, civil, etc. liberalism, who can be totally independent from each other. One can be politically liberal without being economic liberal or neoliberal, etc. Furthermore, in different languaes the precise meanin vary considerably, also according to the political climate of the country.
For these reasons I'd avoid this word when not contextualized better. Therefore, the english source, unless you find another reliable one, must be considered more reliable.--Desyman44 (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I add other sources in english, who confirm the newspaper's conservative attitude: [1], [2], [3], [4]

I don´t think that problem is what Czechs find conservative or liberal. I personaly believe that somebody wrote mistake in English source and another authors copied it. During the The firts republic, Lidové noviny and its authors like Karel Čapek supported Masaryk and Beneš who were moderate left wing politicians.

In Samizdat: "...Jiří Ruml, Jiří Dienstbier and Ladislav Hejdánek...". Jiří Ruml is former stalinist and supporter of left wing/liberal candidate in Czech presidential election (his son cs:Jan Ruml was leader of liberal Freedom Union–Democratic Union) and , cs:Jiří Dienstbier is member of Senate elected on Czech Social Democratic Party list and cs:Ladislav Hejdánek is also obviously not conservative.

Now are Lidové noviny presents various mainstream points of view, many times liberal, also often neoconservative and sometimes left wing. It´s most active commentator is Bohumil Doležal who can´t be accurately describe in few words and is persona sui generis. It is true that they cooperate with neoconservative Neviditelný Pes [5] and publish some neoconservative authors like Alexandr Tomský [6] but it doesn´t make the newspaper conservative. Publishing conservative authors like cs:Michal Semín [7] is rather exception. --Dezidor (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I desagree. The concept of "liberal" means all and nothing, I told you already. First you have to make clear what's the precise definition of "liberal" you mean. Living in Czech Republic, I have to tell you that the concept of "liberalism" here is pretty far from the American or British. Still, in these countries as well the meaning is confusing, so write simply "liberal" is ambiguous. The 1st Republic Lidove Noviny and the samizdat version were very different from what it is now, there's no point in telling what it was at those time to prove today's allegiance. As is said in the text, the paper changed pretty radically since it was bought by MAFRA, that publishes also DNES, which is conservative. The building is the same, and many journalists work for both. And I can even tell you that in the lidove noviny building they have a huge poster of Klaus. No doubt that sometimes they publish some comments on left-wing side or ČSSD side (if we can call the ČSSD as left...), but most of the articles remain right-wing. The same Bohumil Doležal was a consultant of Klaus, then we have -as you said Neviditelný Pes, Alexander Tomský and Michal Semín. The problem is that you separate neoconservative with conservative, which I belive can be considered both a form of conservativism (right-wing). I think that, having to trace a "general" political allegiance, conservative fits pretty well. And there are english sources.--Desyman44 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. I wrote that article by Michal Semín was an exception. More often they publish authors like Tomáš Halík and another people who were connected with Václav Havel.

2. if we can call the ČSSD as left - No doubt that ČSSD is left wing party.

3. Around 1992-1993 was Václav Klaus maily classical liberal (in economical sense). He became more conservative around 1998 and 1999. --Dezidor (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1.Ok, even without Semin, the tendence remains right-wing conservative.

2. Knowing personally Pavel Mertlík, and his economic ideas, I can tell you that, seen from a western perspectice, CSSD is rather centrist or only slightly left, but that is typical for many CEE countries. Anyway, this is not the topic so let's drop it.

3.I dont think that arguing what klaus is or was matters as well. Even because the poster is there now, not between 92-93.

Trustable sources say "conservative". I understand that this may sound "very right wing" in czech, but in english ODS is also defined as conservative.--Desyman44 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Liberal conservativism" seems a good compromise between my source and your claims. Hope it fits for you.--Desyman44 (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lidové noviny. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110929161845/http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/GEMI/Report.shtml to http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Research/GEMI/Report.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110325070306/http://www.wieninternational.at:80/en/node/11577 to http://www.wieninternational.at/en/node/11577

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lidové noviny. 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/20150217165025/http://www.praguepost.cz/archivescontent/19231-lidove-noviny-challenges-decline.html to http://www.praguepost.cz/archivescontent/19231-lidove-noviny-challenges-decline.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)