Talk:Fortean Times

Spelling
Article's growing nicely but there've been some howling typos! Best double-check before wandering off. - afterswish1

RS?
Is the Fortean Times a reliable source that can be used as references in Wikipedia articles? Dreadstar †  19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Without actually reading or ivestigating I think that one could use the magazine as reference for specific statements or theories, but likely not for "facts". It would likely be a good source for information on various fringe theories and at least provide some explainations.  --Rocksanddirt 21:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, R&D! – Dreadstar  †  21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For added discussion Dreadstar also brought this up at the Paranormal Project too: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal. (Emperor 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC))


 * The discussion cited above has gone missing (can't see it in the archived pages either) but I would say this - the articles in Fortean Times are probably closer to peer-reviewed journal articles than those in most magazines and newspapers. So if newspapers can be cited, I see no reason why FT can't be. --taras (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I get it regularly and it's well researched - eg essays written about places by people who go to the place and research its history and interview locals, which seems pretty reliable to me. also it doesn't swallow whole any story that turns up in a newspaper, and it provides refs for the various bits of info it gives. But to some people it can't be reliable at all because it's about the paranormal and there's no such thing so anything that says otherwise isn't reliable. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FT has been one of my favorite reads. One aspect of our species it focuses on that makes it unique is Human Hysterias & Fads. Also Group Panic Behaviors . It was an excellent source of rational information on the "Satanic Abduction" frenzies of the late 80's -early 90's when so many so called "Mainstream legit News sources" seemed to have no skeptical filter mechanisms in place to sort the sometimes shockingly obvious group hysteria out from any objectively "Real" evidence that there was such a phenomenon as "Satanic-Ritual-Abuse". Its series of articles were among the best sourced & Presented that I ever saw on THAT behavioral anomaly. It also ran -totally in an editorially "Hands off" approach- a straight faced presentation of the arguments then popular for propping up the "Intelligent Design" Meme presented to attempt to crow-bar religious creationism into public schools in the USA at one time. Then following issues presented skeptical -and rational- arguments that dismantled the faux logic & errors that made up the  corpus of the "Intelligent Design" construct.  For my mind, FT as a journal of objective observation of peculiar human behaviors is outstanding. Oh and also issues were visible in Muldars office & on his desk in the X-Files ;-)      71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)MBD71.6.81.62 (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 8:15 PM, 2 July 2009

Expanded version - comments
Nice to see so much attention given to the old mag.

Can I venture the following, based on an admittedly hasty read:


 * David Sutton would have been 10 years old in 1976, when the entry has him making a donation to the magazine. Another DS, perhaps?
 * The decision to stop publishing the reprint editions and Fortean Studies was a consequence of the 2000 sale of FT to I Feel Good Publications and its removal from a benevolent (and profitable) parent company to a more commercially-driven, loss-making operation. Both titles broke even at 250-500 copy sales, but the former in particular took some years to reach that total.
 * While Steve Moore and Ian Simmons have both edited Fortean Studies, neither has edited Fortean Times. In fact the only editors of FT have been Rickard, Sieveking, Dash and Sutton, and my own contribution (two fill-in issues in the late 1980s) is vastly less than those of the other three.
 * There were two Weird World annuals, the first in 1996 (edited by James Wallis and Joe McNally).
 * The Book of Strange Deaths was the first in that series; it appeared the year before Weird Sex. The date you have for it is of a reprint edition.
 * The correct title of Book of UFOs 1947-1997 is UFO: 1947-1997 - 50 Years of Flying Saucers.
 * Barmy Sutra was planned but never published.
 * Comedian and World's Stupidest Criminals were US editions of Strange Deaths and Inept Crime.
 * Really the entry needs further expansion to mention a lot more about the magazine's acquisition by John Brown Publishing and expansion from that date. No doubt when you have time! Mikedash (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's "you"..? Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including yourself! :) Stephenb (Talk) 08:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know it's not specifically prohibited, but I don't think people who were involved in the subject of an entry should edit it; they may lack objectivity. Mikedash (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that, Mr Dash. :o) (And thanks for solving that little collections-mystery, too!)
 * Re: Mr Sutton. Oops! Spotted the name and thought "that's interesting," but in retrospect that dates do make it seem pretty unlikely, you're right! As far as editorship, I was working from the credits as listed in the FT issues collected in the books that I own - and they certainly ("seem to") list Mr Moore and Mr Simmons in some kind of editorial capacity... perhaps as honorary titles (or me misreading/mistyping!)?
 * Annoyingly, my vast store of individual back-issues and books are in a separate country, so I've been updating this solely from the half-dozen collections that I do have with me, aided by 'The Internet', which clearly has failed me on some points!
 * And idea if the move to John Brown Publishing was covered in later editorials, or would behind-the-scenes knowledge be required on that front..? ntnon (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've updated as per Mr Dash's comments, barring the added clarification that may be needed over Mr Moore and Mr Simmons. Wasn't entirely sure how to interpret/phrase the 'I Feel Good Publishing' stuff, though. The rest should be better. (Incidentally, I found mention that "Strange Deaths" was illustrated by 'Etienne' - 1. Is that right? 2. Is it this 'Etienne'...? ntnon (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly not!! But wouldn't it have been great if it was. It's Etienne Gilfillan, the longserving FT art director. Re. the Moore/Simmons passage, Ian and Steve appear as members of the "Gang of Fort" or as "Contributing editors" in the credits. That means they were part of the four or five strong team writing most of the mag, as I was for much of my association with the title, but not actually editors. Like you, I don't have my full collection of FT where I am at present, but my recollection is that the later compilation volumes did not include the sort of discursive intros by Paul Sieveking that the earlier ones did, which would make it harder to write about the JBP years. There is an article I wrote for the Small Press Yearbook 1992 which does describe the early association between FT and John Brown, and by chance I do have that here. If you want me to scan it for you send me an email via my website. I also have some internal publishing memoranda which set out the circulation history of the mag and the targets that were being set in the years 1993-95, from the period we were planning the important switch to monthly frequency, which if you're seriously interested in the history of the magazine would make interesting reading. I don't suppose they can be regarded as confidential now, after so many years. For me the key elements to cover in writing about the later years of FT would be the expansion to monthly frequency, which meant having a full time editorial staff in house for the first time - art director, staff writer, pic researcher - the peak in circulation at 60,000 at the height of X Files fever, compromises in editorial vision caused by the drive for sales, especially after the mag left the John Brown stable, and the role FT's success has had in the way strange phenomena are reported, especially in the UK. At one point the magazine was getting more press coverage than any other specialist title in the country, which means vastly more people now understand the word "Fortean" than used to. Mikedash (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to say I have issues #76 onwards to hand if there is anything that you need from them. (Emperor (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Tag query
There is a statement saying "Most of the articles in Fortean Times are written in the style of objective journalism, but this is not a mandatory requirement and some articles focus on a specific theory or point of view." This in itself is surely a perfectly objective statement -- it is merely saying that the magazine which is the subject of this wikpedia article is, on some occasions, non-objective. Yet it has been tagged as being "inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints." So what is the alternative you're looking for, exactly? To tell a lie, and say that the magazine articles are always objective??? 81.79.52.189 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag until someone clarifies the objections to this section. Skomorokh  22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fortean Times. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928122012/http://forteantimes.com:80/features/commentary/396/the_23_phenomenon.html to http://forteantimes.com/features/commentary/396/the_23_phenomenon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Format/size
Was FT 29 really A4, as stated under the section "Paul Sieveking and FT's format change"? I thought that FT was uniformly A5 up to issue 62, with 63 onwards being in A4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

UnConvention
The UnConvention hasn't happened since (I think) 2011, but our section about it says it has happened "most years since 1994". I've been looking for a source to make this change but can't see one online. Does anyone know of a RS for this? Thanks, Turner Street (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)