Talk:Drunvalo Melchizedek

This edition of this article

I know that this article has been deleted in the past. But I also know that the reasons for that deletion had to do with the bias in the article, as well as the notability. Also, that was seven years ago.

I've written this fresh article from scratch with no knowledge of previous versions. There are sufficient citations, I hope, to establish notability. There is sufficient POVs in the article, I hope, to establish NPOV.

Where primary citations are used, they are used only to cite information of the topic's teachings and claims. I endeavoured to ensure claims are stated as claims and not as facts.

I don't have any connection to the article topic. I don't care about Melchizedek/Perona one way or the other. But his name is increasingly appearing in places, not just online but even within Wikipedia. In the spirit of WP:PRIME, I decided that including an article on such a widely mentioned person would be better than the alternative. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 09:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Unclear If Quoting Or Endorsing Pseudoscience

Criticism section contains the following passage:

"However, while even conservative physicist argue with quantum science physicist about old formulas and about what cannot be right until 100% proven, there is a huge amount of experimental evidence proving, that we live in a world that works under very precise laws and mind experiments have extensively been performed and every time show that mind or consciousness seems to influence the outcome of experiments. Deliberate results created by strong conscious focus of a test person have been observed and proven in countless experiments starting from the early 1920s. So we have almost 100 years of consciousness experiments, that confirm that "something" more than meets the eye or the scientist or our test devices must be in play. And this forces, again, follow very precise mathematical alignment that can be predicted."

This is borderline philosophical and contains no sources. It also contains some grammatical errors. It is unclear if this is referring to the placebo effect or is claiming the existence of psychic phenomena.

I don't think this article should be deleted, but I think it should be looked at for context... Chapter 2 of Lieb's "Children of Ezekiel" provides secondary source commentary on Drunvalo. [Unfortunately I cannot currently contribute at this time, and I am certainly not an expert in these ideas.]

Celestialsamael (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

To me it cleary seems to endorse pseudoscience. Also this: "For example, the platonic solids are formations that are at the foundation of all existing physical and microscopic structures of everything in existence." For example the source code of life, the DNA, is a structure that shows no platonic solids. --Querstrebe (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The article as it stands is a patchwork of unsourced claims, and merely extremely poorly claims, all of them, as pointed out, bad, and badly written. But not so much borderline philosophy, as dead-centre drivel. The previous AfD appeared to suggest one potentially reliable source: a "newspaper article on the detrimental effects of his teaching". But the link given doesn't work, I've no idea what newspaper it might have been and whether it's an RS, and in any case the present text in no way reflects any such content. I'm really torn: speedy delete as "Inaccurate information", speedy delete as "Total nonsense", or AfD and delete. So many excellent options, with one subtle common element. On balance the third, as the previous AfD didn't specify SD(4) or SD(5) grounds. This one should. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I suspect that there are plenty of folks who are True Believers who will seek to amend the page to affirm those beliefs. Perhaps the page ought to be semi protected. I sense that will be an uphill battle. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I really wonder sometimes what happened to {{sofixit}} principle around here. I've no love for people who seek to do nothing on Wikipedia but destroy. I think that is the biggest problem Wikipedia faces, is people who insist on taking the lazy, destructive, reductive way out of improving the project.

I took the step to create an article about a topic that appears occasionally in various places in popular culture (Tool, Willow and Jaden Smith, for three quick examples) but had no article. Then it gets vandalized by folks that can't comprehend NPOV. There's a simple solution to bad contributions -- revert them.

But some people decide that instead of adding to the encyclopedia, the only thing to do is "hulk smash." I don't understand why anyone thinks that is a noble thing to do -- not only to reduce the scope of Wikipedia, but to destroy the work of another editor (me) of reasonably good standing who made a sincere effort to actually improve the encyclopedia's scope. But sadly, some people know nothing but "delete, delete, delete, it is unclean in my sight and must be destroyed." I think that strategy is reductive, knee-jerk, and lazy, and I am sad at what they have done, and are doing, to this project.

It's the #1 reason I don't bother contributing hardly anymore. Nobody wants to put their effort into putting together a difficult to make article just to have some armchair content police come by and unceremoniously kick the castle over. At least not me. Guess I still haven't learned my lesson. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Heavy Bias and Promotion of Pseudoscience

Large portions of this article seem to support pseudoscience, with many claims lacking citations. These claims in general seem to further the interests and ideas of the subject and are generally unverifiable from independent sources. Waytasas (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

This cites Drunvalo.org at least three times, which includes a copy of an earlier Wikipedia article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you'll find the earlier wikipedia article was, rather, a copy of drunvalo.org.

It is also the subject's official website, which makes it a valid source of the subject's claims and statements, attributed as such. WP:PRIMARYCARE is useful here:

The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements

Keith D. Tyler ¶ 07:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)