User talk:Vejvančický/Sandbox3

feedback as requested

Hey Antonin! I'm only too happy to help out (as much as I can) - having sooooo many problems elsewhere. In fact, completely and utterly stuck and rather despondent about it all.

First impressions; not yet a balanced article - a lot on the controversies, too little on the magazine and its background; the latter, I think, needs clarification. What was the Czech political-cultural context, and how did this produce the magazine? "Conservative" is too vague - I think readers will benefit from being told more about Czech conservatism. Then there's the magazine itself; who started it (and what were they doing before this?); editorial policy, contributors, transfer of ownership (if any) and whether or not the magazine has changed since its acquisition by the media group.

Put it this way: certainly in the UK (and probably in the US), an award for growing the best cannabis plant isn't something usually associated with a conservative magazine...

I'll put this page on my watch-list. I'll be happy to sort out any copy issues, btw. Best regards, Haploidavey (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinions, Davey. You are right, the article is not balanced. I'm trying to use only sources independent on the magazine itself, and unfortunately the sources deal mainly with controversies. There is an overview of the history of Reflex in the 20th anniversary issue, I'll try to expand the article with that information and answer your questions. Btw, Reflex is sometimes really considered as a conservative magazine; could there be a little difference between the perception of the term in the professional and well-developed Anglo-American journalism and the perception of still "young" independent Czech journalism? Using of this term in the post-communist world is quite complicated, as conservatism defends traditional values and continuity, and the first free post-communist media (including Reflex) had to start building again; to some extent they had to find the values and the interrupted tradition. The provocative cannabis award could be an attempt to test the borders of freedom of speech and to come closer to independent and bold journalism. This is, however, just my vague point of view. We should probably avoid this association on English Wikipedia, as this is a world grown in a completely different tradition and experience. Again, thanks for pointing out the problems. I'll work on it. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to expand and clarify the origins and background of the magazine as recommended. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been hovering over your shoulder the whole time! Good beefy stuff... d'you reckon you're pretty much done with the content? 'Cos I do, and intend twiddling up the prose some time this weekend. By the way, it's no big deal but are you OK with all those red-links? Haploidavey (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davey, you won't believe how happy I am seeing that you are still interested! I'm careful with the red links, this project has still gaps in detailed covering of Czech topics. All of the red linked names are notable Czech journalists. See the Czech wiki articles for Jan Šibík, Petr Hájek, Jiří X. Doležal, Tomáš Feřtek, Josef Klíma, Jiří Pehe, Tomáš Baldýnský, Bohumil Pečinka, Miloš Čermák, Pavlína Wolfová. With the red colour I'm trying to point out that they should have articles also here. Thank you for your help and interest, ask whatever :) --Vejvančický (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know how that one feels. It can be a strange and lonely business indeed. Still, here come the queries:

Constitution and Editorial continuity: d'you know who owned it in the first place? Was it a one-man show which employed Petr Hájek? Or was he owner and editor? Sorry to be picky here, but it'll matter, particularly as this is living persons biog.

Yes, the BLP issue is the main reason why I asked for your help. Hájek was the owner, together with Andrej Šťastný and Jiří Fleyberk. He seems to be the most important one, according to my sources.

OK: so the sale of the magazine (over the heads of the editorial board) was entirely legal, despite the resentment. D'you think this was seen as a matter of personal gain and freedom of action (on his part) vs personal responsibility towards colleagues? Would or might this have been seen in any way as a betrayal of the founding ideals of the magazine?

Exactly, this was not a legal problem, rather a betrayal of ideals and colleagues. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sell-up: did Hájek leave with the sell-up, or did he stay on as editor under Ringier? If he left, d'you know what he did next?

No, he left Reflex and attempted to start another medial projects. He didn't succeed and currently works in the office of Czech President.(source published in the mid 2009) Btw, he has worked for a long time as the spokesman of the Czech President Václav Klaus.

Interesting. So what would that make his political affiliation? Has it changed since he founded reflex?

Logically, the atmosphere in the Czech society at the early 90s was completely different from today's situation. It was necessary to build up not only completely new political scene, but also a completely new independent journalism. Reflex was a strongly anti-communist magazine at the beginning. In my opinion, Hájek was a sympathizer of the right-wing opinions from the very beginning.--Vejvančický (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ringier appoint Bílek? Or did Hájek?

Bílek was appointed by Ringier.

OK. I might ask more on this, but not yet.

And possibly most importantly - has the character of the magazine changed under this series of owners and editors, as far as you can tell from analysts and commentators? Haploidavey (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has changed significantly. The initial character was really free and I would say very independent. The current, a bit "agressive" and tabloid style is caused by the new editor-in-chief Pavel Šafr, and perhaps by the marketing strategy of Ringier. However, this is only my own conclusion, and I can back it up only with angry comments from Czech blogs. Here you can find a facebook group called "We don't want Reflex malformed by Šafr's administration". It has 275 fans just now. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so good if you could find something on that; especially in terms of the landmark controversies - it sure does sound like a sad transformation. Haploidavey (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your smoothing of my clumsy wording is excellent, btw. I have only one remark: Reflex was selected as the best magazine among social magazines (in Czech: "společenský časopis"); the annual poll has more categories. I'm unsure whether the English world uses this term. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all. We don't have such a term; this is one of the reasons I need such a clear exposition of the socio-political context. I'll change the wording just as soon as I can think of a better; but I might take a somewhat different approach, and insert something to establish context for Anglophones who know little or nothing of the Velvet Rev. Haploidavey (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Davey, I really appreciate it. Vejvančický (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to get a feel for this business, I went hunting and found online, for what it might be worth; "Reflex, the equivalent of Time magazine in the Czech Republic." (this may well be simple puffery and self-aggrandisement, but it'd be interesting to know the leanings and interests of the source: [1]. On the other hand, there's this [2]: is that a fair appraisal of Reflex journalism? It seems to court contrary opinion for its own sake. An odd sort of right-wing, free-market liberalism. Haploidavey (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm a bit ashamed, since I left you lost in a sea of Czech websites and articles, and I forgot to find sources understandable also for English speaking people. The first link is a blog, though the comparison with Time magazine is interesting. Personally I think that the cultural background of both periodicals is too different and the comparison is a bit simplifying. The second link reveals more, it is a defence of Mirek Topolánek, who commited political suicide a month or two ago. An interesting thing: Reflex sharply criticised Topolánek in the past, but with the upcoming general election in the Czech Republic the articles about the Civic Democratic Party (Topolánek was the chairman of the party) become more and more canvassing and promotional. A part of Czech society is worried about populistic plans of Jiří Paroubek (the chairman of the Czech Social Democratic Party and a representant of the left-wing thinking). Reflex has its role in the battle. The role is a bit disgusting for me, as I know the magazine for many years and I always appreciated their independent and sometimes even ironic style. On the other hand, I understand their intention. According to Reflex, Paroubek and Czech Social Democratic Party represent danger and threat for the Czech society.

I hope that the trivial disputes of a little nation in the middle of Europe are not too boring for you, but an explanation is necessary. I want to write a descriptive article about an important part of the Czech media scene. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

links in English:

Well... sorry for such a delay. I thought I was on a run elsewhere. But now I'm stuck-ish. I've had a good look around, and I think I've a slightly better grasp of the political outlines here. I think we can let the quotes speak for themselves - I can find no English equivalent for the political context. Thanks in particular for Jan Culik's and Pečinka's pieces. Seems like a hell of a lot has happened, extraordinarily fast and in very different ways to most of Europe. Too fast and too recently, perhaps, to have formed any kind of predictable pattern or typical categories of anything much. Quite a ferment!

A couple of issues need clarification, dates and whatnot - as this is a user-page, I've placed comments and requests for the same in article space (small script). By the way, I've doubts about how far to take the Bem issues - they don't seem finished by any means, so perhaps should not be rounded off by what might prove to be premature conclusions. What d'you think? Haploidavey (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I know the queried translation from Rath is verbatim from source: but it doesn't make sense in English. Perhaps you could go to the Czech original and translate it yourself, 'cos I reckon you'd make a much better job of it. Haploidavey (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed something; we need to insert a summary sentence. Early on, we jump from Reflex's foundation to its status as a leading periodical in 2010. Then we go back to 1993. I think that's fine, but the first sell-out should I think be the start of a para. We need some sort of description to summarise that 1993-2010 development, preferably taken direct from one or several sources. Tricky, I guess, but essential, because the flavour I get from all this is one of political, entrepreneurial and ideological ferment, where things are not necessarily what they might seem to a non-Czech. A rich brew, and Reflex a tip of the iceberg: we need to know it early on. I guess we could resort to Culick's encyclopedia entry, but that would be rather oblique and non-specific. Haploidavey (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions and clarifications are excellent. Just one thing remains, a recent addition to the second paragraph: "In spite of this, Reflex remained the most successfull Czech social magazine in the field of advertisment in the later 2000s." Does this mean its advertising space is particularly valuable? Haploidavey (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no problem with the delay. You came to Wikipedia to write about the subjects which you like and enjoy, and I totally respect that. Editing my badly written articles on weird and obscure topics must be very hard for you, given the social and cultural difference between our countries. Offering your help, your knowledge and open mind is something that I value immensely. It is unusual on this site. Furthermore, the delay gives me some time to consider things again properly. I'm well aware how damaging can be incorrectly presented information, especially here on Wikipedia. Thanks for the review! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's always a pleasure to edit with you. You never retreat behind obscurity or persistent repetitions, and are so evidently committed to quality. Yes, the differences in language and cultural assumptions can be challenging, but that's not a deficit: if we can't meet this we can never find anything new. On the subject of constructive delay - absolutely right. Oh, and obscure is good. I just love it. Haploidavey (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. I attempted to fix the chronology in the section "Background" and fill the gap a bit, using an interview with the former editor-in-chief Petr Bílek in a Slovak online magazine. Please, let me know, if the section needs further improvements. I've added a more comprehensible (??) explanation of the Paroubek's issue; and I fixed the typo brought from the original source at Rath's case. Is the quotation more understandable now? Pavel Bém didn't explain, why exactly he abandoned his intention to sue Reflex. However, I've added the most important part (in my opinion) of his defence. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your last question, it is not so important. Reflex apparently lost a part of its readership due to modernization of Respekt, one of its main competitors. However, the magazine has a stable position and is still very popular among Czech advertisors. The information could more appropriate for an article about Czech media. I'll delete the addition. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is, as I said, excellent. I think the loss of readership to Respekt is important, and will rephrase but as far as I can see, you've now the makings of a very interesting and illuminating article. I doubt that more is needed here; an article on Czech media would be a good thing. I'll come back very soon for minor language fixes. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revised entry communicated just what it needs to. And thanks for the English language link. Haploidavey (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a bit. Didn't you say Petr Hájek became a spokesman for Václav Klaus? Even if he did other things in between, that's quite an important connection and deserves a mention. Have we a cite for his later career? I see you have something above. Could we use it? At the moment, he just drops into nothingness... Haploidavey (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just a couple of very small things. Did Hájek stay on as editor after the sell out? And would I be correct in calling Hájek and Klaus political allies? Haploidavey (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) No, Hájek left the magazine after the sell out.

2) Hmm, yes I think we can call them "allies", as Hájek has helped with the "media image" of Klaus for many years, and he participated on an election campaign of the Civic Democratic Party. Klaus is the founder of this party.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]