Talk:René Warcollier

untitled
This article is in dire need of 3rd party independent sources. The detail it contains and the notability it claims is supported by fringe and 'psychic' sources that are not reliable, and not an independent view of the subject. There's not much to be found on him outside of these marginalized sources. I did see Warcollier mentioned in a 1940 issue of Nature that I hope another editor can access. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to AfD this in part because he seems to be notable as fringe theorists go. However it is true that better sources are necessary.Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I trust that the above commentators recognize at least the arguability of what they blankly describe as "fringe." I consider that use of such a term by WP editors is not appropriate: they should be obliged to spell out what they mean, with relevant references; editors of encyclopedias are not well served, and do not well serve readers, I believe, by following sociological typings of knowledge, and especially not in the summary form of an adjective, and without reference. I suspect that this term "fringe" is applied as a summary justification to delete research that one or another editor "does not like," does not feel comfortable with, or at least has not acquainted themselves with. I beg that the commentators try harder to appreciate the breadth of knowledge that humans have sought to attain, and the phenomena they have sought to explain, on one or another premise or basic assumption, and that merits encyclopedic representation. --Rodgarton 09:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry that you feel that way. Notwithstanding your complaint he still appears to be a fringe researcher however one that meets the notability guidelines; if barely.Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As it is, the article relies much too heavily on primary (Warcollier himself) sources and "in universe" (Parapsychology handbook, Ingo Swann, etc.) sources. Per WP:FRINGE, we should be careful to avoid using the "in universe" jargon of remote viewing and telepathy fringe advocates to describe their claims of theoretical and experimental achievements. I made some edits based on these concerns but see they are being inexplicably reverted. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)