Britské listy
magazine
Britské listy is a Czech-language cultural and political internet daily. It is published by a reader-financed NGO Britske Listy o.s. (Czech: Občanské sdružení Britské listy) based in Prague.
The website was founded in July 1996 by Jan Čulík, Senior Lecturer in Czech Studies at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. Since it began, the website has argued that the purpose of its journalism is to introduce ideas from the outside world into a fairly enclosed, circular, Czech-language dependent political and cultural discourse within the Czech Republic. The main purpose of Britské listy has been to challenge ideas which it claims circulate uncritically within the Czech Republic.
Britské listy is one of several Knowledge Exchange projects operated by Glasgow University.
A poll of the readership conducted in 2007 showed a disproportionately high representation of urban men with higher education and high income.
Since April 2015, in cooperation with Regionální televise.cz, a Czech cable TV station, Britské listy broadcasts weekly fifteen-minute interviews on topical political and cultural issues.
In 2001, a Britské listy journalist, Tomas Pecina, was arrested and charged for criticising a new law passed in the Czech Republic prohibiting sympathy for the September 11 attacks in New York City.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Britské listy” as magazine. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as magazine. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 9, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q920557. 3 of 4 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1996, 2007, 2015 and 2001.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Britské listy”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Britské listy primary sources, Britské listy archive and Britské research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Britské listy”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Britské listy” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.