Talk:London Review of Books

This article is very slight, given the importance and impact of the LRB. Why is the article not as informative as that on the New York Review of Books? I am, I regret, not qualified to take this on. Gordoncph (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Times?
New message, not idea how to do this - but the first sentence on the LRB page refers to The Times. That would be the New York Times, not The Times published in London, which the reader would expect in an article on the London Review of Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.42.131 (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the current rendering is correct, the London Times was closed for a year. The closure of the NY Times, which led to the foundation of the NYRB, was in 1963. Philip Cross (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Weight
(diff) "specious fawning"? Please. You're welcome to build a better Reception section, but it isn't undue weight to start one with a sentence. A sentence from an editor at The Awl is hardly a bad place to start. czar 19:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if any of you have ever read this magazine. You should really make some point about its anti-Israel bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:8601:B201:DCC2:B74A:E2AC:B647 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The lawsuit which never happened
"In 2011, when Pankaj Mishra criticised Niall Ferguson's book Civilisation: The West and the Rest in the LRB, Ferguson threatened to sue for libel."

Given that the lawsuit was not brought, this hardly seems worth including in a very brief history of the paper. If it is worth including, it should say it didn't happen (because I had to go and look it up elsewhere). But: "In 2011, when Pankaj Mishra criticised Niall Ferguson's book Civilisation: The West and the Rest in the LRB, Ferguson threatened to sue for libel, but didn't" kind of underlines how trivial this is. KD Tries Again (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)