|WikiProject Magazines||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Horror||(Rated Start-class)|
In a world as transient as SF magazine publishing, I think the word "recently" should be qualified. Notinasnaid 16:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Rayray 09:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) Apologies if my previous edit led to any confusion. I misunderstood your original addition, and was just trying to make it a little clearer. No offence intended.
Whats wrong with thier site?
I was wondering, whats wrong with the weird tales website? Did they change it or what? I kind of need to visit it.
- If you went to http://weirdtales.net/ then you did visit it. This is a site in the early stages of creation. Or recreation. Anyway, what you see is what there is - right now, a list of basic files found in an empty site, and nothing else. If they (re)create it soon we can take the link out of the article. On the other hand... there is also a http://www.weird-tales.com/ which claims to be the official site, but as it seems to be selling tee shirts I'm not so sure! Notinasnaid 08:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thats just great. They dont even have their guidelines listed.
0 The article should make it clear that Baird, not Wright, first published Lovecraft. Does anyone know who discovered Seabury Quinn? Nareek 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with the world of weird tales so please forgive me if I'm in error but it's my understanding that Ann Vandermeer and Stephen Segal were replaced in 2011 by Marvin Kaye as editors. The text of this article reflects that already but the infobox and Ann Vandermeer's page do not. I intend to change them in line with the new reality. If I'm mistaken in doing this please revert my edits LordFenix (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Possible Bias against the Kaye version of WT?
I'm puzzled at some of the coverage of the Marvin Kaye version of Weird Tales. Firstly, an positive review of a MK WT issue from a RS was deleted as "not relevant to the history or background of the magazine", but a negative review of a MK WT issue (an issue which was not, AFAIK, offered for sale to the general public) is allowed to stay on the article. There's also a piece from the SFE saying under Kaye, WT's future is "once again in the balance" - a comment that could have been made about the previous versions as well, but here seemed designed to make the new editor look bad.
I understand many people were upset with the departure of the previous WT editors (a fair opinion) but surely the new WT deserves a chance? I hope I'm wrong, but the coverage of the Kaye WT here doesn't seem in line with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality ([[Stephen Jones]] has spoked very highly of Kaye's WT, for instance). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think Ain't It Cool News is a very good source for critical commentary about the magazine, though it's true that recent issues are going to be hard to find critical commentary for. In particular, commentary on a single issue, in an era where the magazine has less circulation and less influence than it used to, seems unnecessary. Overall I think the coverage is unbalanced at the moment; there should be more on the earlier period, using sources like Mike Ashley's histories. If I get time next year I'll try to do some work on the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a serious allegation and needs a source
I have no idea if the following is true or not, however, it surely needs to be linked to a decent source if the statement is to remain. 'However, after years of losses, accusations of poor editorial standards management (including allegations that editor Darrell Schweitzer was regularly abusing his position to publish his own work over submitted material by other authors)...' This could well be considered defamatory could it not? Regardless I believe it needs a link. Hmadoc (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whether there's a source for the allegation or it's just the catty comment of the editor who added it to the article, I think it can be adequately put to rest by the following statement by Schweitzer regarding Weird Tales, from a 2006 interview of him on blackgate.com. Basically, he didn't get to decide whether his own work was published in the magazine:
- "There’s been a lot of controversy about whether an editor should publish in his own magazine, but I take my cue from Frederik Pohl of Galaxy and Michael Moorcock of New Worlds, and a very long list others. It was never entirely my magazine anyway, even during the brief period around 1990 when I was listed as sole editor. We had merely promoted George Scithers to “publisher,” but the day-to-day operation of the magazine didn’t change much. Stories were bought by a best-of-three method, divided originally between George Scithers, John Betancourt, and myself, and when John left for a time, between George, myself, and the “Editorial Horde” who counted as one vote. For a story of mine to be bought, I was not allowed to vote and everyone else had to be unanimous." ("The Sorcery of Storytelling: The 'Imaginary Worlds' of Darrell Schweitzer" (interview by John R. Fultz))
Thanks for the info BPK. I have removed the comment contained within the brackets: However, after years of losses, accusations of poor editorial standards management (including allegations that editor Darrell Schweitzer was regularly abusing his position to publish his own work over submitted material by other authors) and reversion of the license by Weird Tales, Ltd. I'm not entirely happy with: "the accusations of poor editorial standards management", however, will live with it. Hmadoc (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)