Talk:The New York Times Book Review

"Does God Give Us More Than We Can Bear?"
A Non-fiction true story of my life. My mother was born deaf, dumb and poor in Monroe, La. in 1918. Her mother died in childbirth, leaving her abandoned. When she was grown, she worked as a live-in housekeeper and was raped and gave birth to me and I was abandoned. I grew up in many foster homes working on farms. When I was 17, I worked my way through college and married and started a family. When my son was born I started a successful three year search for my mother. Later my first wife was murdered by a drug addict, my son was killed at 15 in a car accident. I was rejected by many people and attempted suicide. I met my second wife and again fought rejection from her family but I overcame it. Then at age 64, I was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, an untreatable and incurable lung disease and given 6 months to 5 years to live. I went to Germany and was cured after 2 years of using a serum made from my blood. In 2008, I was pronounced as the first person in the world ever cured of this disease. I wrote my book to try to reach as many people as I can to try to offer them hope. Zig Ziglar wrote my foreword. I developed a bond with him as We had something in common. His oldest daughter died of pulmonary fibrosis. My book was published by Tate Publishing Co. and was released nationwide Nov. 10, 2009. Jerry Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.236.151 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New York Review of Books
Does the distinguish tag added today make sense? I don't think the two are that easily confused. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Paranoid suppositions
Regarding this recent addition, deleted for the following reasons

1. It's a paranoid supposition. There is no evidence that the NYTBR "ignores" Encounter Books. The claim is not supported by facts. Here's some facts: there are 100's of thousands of books published in the USA each year (millions?), of which the NYTBR reviews a few hundred. Getting a review is like winning the lottery, it doesn't happen very often in particular for small specialized publishers with a limited audience, like Encounter Books.

2. It's obvious the publisher of Encounter Books is creating a mountain of controversy where none exists. Giving that faux controversy space on Wikipedia is a form of astroturfing.

3. The source is a blog and not noteworthy. If every publisher who didn't get a review in the NYTBR was given free reign to complain, we would have a very long article indeed.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've deleted this edit (a revised edit from the above) for the same reasons given above. Publisher Roger Kimball says "it’s quite clear that books from Encounter won’t be getting [NYTBR reviews]" because of their conservative content - but that is not clear at all. How does the publisher know this? If the NYTBR confirmed this, or there was any shred of evidence for it, OK it becomes a real criticism. But there is no evidence, it's not a real criticism or controversy. It's a baseless accusation possibly subject to WP:LIBEL against the Book Review's editor Sam Tanenhaus (see also WP:BLPGROUP). The source is a single blog, see WP:SOURCES. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jim said in an edit comment that "this was news a couple years back" and then reverted the edit, and did not respond to any of the above. My response to Jim 1) A self-published blog entry is not news 2) even if it was, not all news is appropriate for Wikipedia 3) it's a one sided baseless attack on the NYTBR with potential for libel against the editor Sam Tanenhaus. See WP:LIBEL, WP:BLP and WP:BLPGROUP. Finally, if you continue to conduct yourself on Wikipedia by choosing not to engage in discussion pages, and continue to unilaterally revert edits without discussion, I'll have little option but to post on the Admin board and ask for help. I'll give you 24 hours to respond. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I copied the entry from the encounter wikipedia page and edited it down to remove inflammatory remarks by Kimball. Maybe this entry should be edited down to minimize Encounter but question of bias should not be deleted entirely. At very least this should be a footnote on questions of bias given other links questioning liberal bona fides of the times (link questioning if the times favors white male authors over minorities and women) ARE posted here. Other reasons to keep the entry: Kimball is prominent public intellectual, Tanenahaus is on record acknowledging embargo, public announcement by legitimate publisher seems noteworthy in discussion of bias, item was picked up by gawker, new york sun, timeswatch, national review (not just encounter blog, which apparently does not exist anymore and is not linked to), Tanenhaus is object of criticism for the right in role as NYTBR editor having published attacks on conservatism. Issues of the Times political leanings are posted on the main New York Times entry, why should they not be discussed here as well? The issue of criticism over bias from both left and right can be expounded on in the criticism section, this was merely meant as a starting point. -- User:Jim Sharon (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well Jim, color me shocked to learn that some people on the right accuse the Times of being liberal. I'd never head of such a thing ;) The problem here is, that's not the accusation, rather they are intentionally not reviewing books for ideological reasons. There is no proof or evidence of this, it's baseless. You say "Tanenahaus is on record acknowledging embargo" -- we let's see it, where's the record? Once you produce that, we have a public "Controversy", which can be reported on Wikipedia. Until then, it isn't so much a criticism, as a baseless attack. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Did more research on this. Apparently there is more to this story. Read this article for example. Tanenahaus said what I noted above, the whole thing is contrived. There is no controversy, at least none important enough to be included in this article. I see the same exact content has been added to other Wikipedia articles as well, apparently the same content you were adding here was added to the article Encounter Books using the ID User:Encounterbooks. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Splitting best books and notable books to new pages
Since Best Books of the Year section became quite large, maybe it's worth splitting it to a separate page with the list only? I'm also thinking to add Notable Books as separate page(s) too. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolframiac (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose clump or split doesn't matter, but without enough reliable secondary sources it could be nominated for deletion. -- Green  C  17:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How come then this is worthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_The_New_York_Times_Fiction_Best_Sellers? Wolframiac (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Any article without sufficient secondary sources can be nominated for AfD. It might happen right away from a new page patroller, or might be 10 years later. -- Green  C  20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to find 4 or 5 sources that discuss certain year's Notable Book selections. That should be enough to make an AfD nom think twice when sourcing is demonstrated with a few cases, don't need it for every entry, it would satisfy WP:GNG. --  Green  C  20:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Blatty lawsuit
Soibangla took issue with my addition of following section:

"1983 Legion'' court case

In 1983, William Peter Blatty sued the New York Times Book Review for failing to include his 1983 novel, Legion, in its best-seller list. Blatty contended that Legion had sold enough copies to be included on the list. Lawyers for The New York Times did not deny this, but said that the content of the New York Times best-seller list is not intended to be factual, but is, rather, editorial content. The court ruled in favor of The New York Times."''

He claimed that the account I had written was not backed up by this source. This was after I had already changed the language I used to more closely adhere to the source.

@Soibangla, as you have deleted this addition twice, complaining that it does not say what my source says, I would like to ask you how you would summarize the information contained in it. Harry Sibelius (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you either find another source that supports your interpretation of Blatty, or change your edit such that it is supported by the source you provide. I am not proposing inclusion of this content, so it is not incumbent upon me to explain how I would write it. I simply don't see how your two versions are supported by your source. Perhaps you should parse your edit and your source here to show how they agree. That's how an editor defends their work on Talk. soibangla (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you're capable of understanding.
 * My source reads:
 * ''"The suit was filed after the book was not included in the Times’ weekly list of best-sellers, which the paper says is based on computer-processed sales figures from 2,000 bookstores across the nation."
 * "Blatty contended that his book had sold more than enough copies to warrant a listing and that the Times had failed to make the objective and accurate assessment of sales it claimed it did."
 * “There is such a thing in this country and in this state as the First Amendment,” Levy said. “Editors are entitled to edit and the New York Times is entitled to have its own best-seller list.”
 * I wrote:
 * "In 1983, William Peter Blatty sued the New York Times Book Review for failing to include his 1983 novel, Legion, in its best-seller list. Blatty contended that Legion had sold enough copies to be included on the list. Lawyers for The New York Times did not deny this, but said that the content of the New York Times best-seller list is not intended to be factual, but is, rather, editorial content. The court ruled in favor of The New York Times."
 * What are the specific facts that you deny are identical to one another?

Harry Sibelius (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, show how the specific phrases in your edit correspond with the source content. The WP:ONUS is not on me, it is on you. I will not further engage you on this if you don't make the effort to defend your work. Simply regurgitating what's already there is inadequate. soibangla (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS says that the onus is on me to convince you why the content should be included. But that is not yet the subject of our dispute. The point of disagreement you have repeatedly raised is that my summary does not match my source, not that you disagree with the inclusion of the material at all. WP:ONUS does not say that the onus is on me to convince you of a lack of disparity or contradiction. Using WP:ONUS as you have is a non-sequitur. 
 * While we're at it, here's another source source backing up my summary:
 * "The Times’s legal defense was an, ahem, novel one: The list was an editorial product, not a strict accounting of which books sold the most copies. The courts sided with the Times, though Blatty appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear his case. Though the Times triumphed, soon after the Blatty case, it began hedging its bets and appended fine print to the list explaining that the sales figures were statistically adjusted." Harry Sibelius (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a news piece, and from a dubious source. News sources don't say "ahem." The first thing you need to do is find a reliable source that says the Times argued the list is not intended to be factual, but is, rather, editorial content. I do not see the LA Times reports that. That is the extent to which I will do your work for you. soibangla (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Harry Sibelius (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Harry Sibelius (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you assert the page from the book you now cite supports that the NYT stated that the content of the New York Times best-seller list is editorial in content in Blatty, or at any other time? soibangla (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pages 286 to 304? Yes. Particularly on page 297. Are you taking issue with the fact that I used the phrase "editorial content" instead of "editorial product?" Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You specifically cite p. 290. Can you show a page that mentions Blatty? soibangla (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I specifically cited pages 286 to 304, and told you to look at 297. The link you clicked to page 290 is just a link to the publication's entry on google books, not the pages I specified. If you had read my entry before deleting it, you would know that, clearly proving that you have not been reading my edits before you delete them. The funniest thing is I didn't even set that trap up on purpose.
 * I know you will say that the "onus" is not on you to say or do anything, but I am precluded by law from travelling to your home and physically forcing you to click this link to page 297 I am sending, so I will just have to ask politely. Pwease wead it Mistah Soinbangla? Harry Sibelius (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The source you provided went straight to p. 290, and nowhere else. The link you gave me just now goes to no page at all. I suggest you stop this. soibangla (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not made your case with reliable sources and you are now edit warring. Please self-revert so you will not be sanctioned. soibangla (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary is a misrepresentation of what I have done. I advise you to self-revert. soibangla (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Brother, you just admitted to not having read the page that I cited before deleting the source. You are continuing to refuse to read my sources before deleting them. Literally all you have to do is go to page 297 of the book I sent you a link to, which is available for free on the internet. The link I sent works for me, but even if it doesn't work for you, the page I cited is freely available in the google books preview, and you can easily simply type in the page number. You seem to be a grown man with a wife, and I should not have to teach you how to use the a computer. There is no way for me to make this any easier for you. Give me one reason why you are incapable of doing that. Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here it is as an image, in case your google is banned in your country: Harry Sibelius (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That source supports your edit, but you didn't provide that source in either case of your edits. Instead, you cast aspersions upon me, suggesting I am incompetent. Not good form around these parts. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But as it stands, your link still goes to p. 290, which does not mention Blatty. Wanna try again? soibangla (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * you just admitted to not having read the page that I cited before deleting the source is false. soibangla (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)