Talk:London Review of Books

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]