Talk:Fortean Times

message: Is the Fortean Times a reliable source that can be used as references in Wikipedia articles? Dreadstar  †  19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, R&D!  – Dreadstar † 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text:  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)
thread_title: RS?

message: 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)
replies: text: I have removed the tag until someone clarifies the objections to this section.  Skomorokh  22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag query 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format/size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UnConvention