Talk:Jonathan Keeperman

Vietnam Book

I compiled a book, written by 59 Vietnam Veterans. I’m getting low on them. Do you print, bind and ship books? I can get all the layouts. The price I’m paying is far too much. I saw Lomez on tv a while ago. I hope you can help me. Thank you. Gary Gullickson Sgt.USMC 67-70 Vietnam Veteran. 97.91.91.76 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to contact Passage Press themselves -- this is a Wikipedia page, unaffiliated with the publisher. Here is their contact page. Havoc Crow (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Keeperman, own page?

There was an article used as a source in this page that emphasized the founder, Jonathan Keeperman, although the publishing house is more significant. Opening up section if others have thoughts on if the founder warrants a separate page or not - I made a redirect to here for now. The person-focused coverage may just be short-term/tabloid/human interest, but I could also see it being helpful to have information about publishers of high-interest works (particularly classics such as Junger and Joseph Conrad) Bluetik (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

“New Right” not “Far Right”

Per my note in a recent edit The Guardian describes, in the first sentence of the article: ‘ prominent “new right” publishing house Passage Press’

I also think the term “new right” is specifically helpful, given the organizations distinction of being close to internet culture.

I lastly think the term “far right” is specifically unhelpful, given that it is a blanket term and includes groups as fringe as violent terrorists.[1]

Even if none of those three things were true, and I don’t know how Wikipedia considers this, but in the article, the author, Jason Wilson, describes Ernst Jünger as a “radical German Nationalist” which per his page would be pretty unsupported, and seems to indicate perhaps a tendency to typify ideology as more extremely right wing than consensus has found. Not sure if this is as relevant as previous points, though.

Happy and interested to discuss. Bluetik (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with the New right label. It's broad enough. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Reflord I opened a talk section for this. The source literally says “new right.” Bluetik (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bluetik the source is quoting Passage itself when it calls it "new right", but when it describes it independently, it also literally describes it as "far-right" ("Like many other far-right publishers, "). as a compromise, I'd be happy to say that it has been described as far-right by a variety of news sources or something like that (in fact, basically every independent source that talks about Passage in depth?) Reflord (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Both descriptions appear to be DUE from the cited RS. I added "far-right" to the first sentence and also kept "new right" in it. Llll5032 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

+1 for new right, agree with reasoning from both Biohistorian15 and Bluetik Total Information Awareness (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking back at the two sources mentioned by reflord, neither seem to pass. "Like many other far-right publishers," may just as easily be describing those aforementioned publishers but not Passage. In addition, the other source isn't describing the publishing house .

In addition, there's all kinds of precedent supportive of and indicating towards avoiding subjective and contentious characterizations in the lede, and also specifically in BLP. Can include in the body if necessary. Also, this article isn't even about the publishing house now, it's about Keeperman.

WP:BLPRACIST

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE

MOS:FIRSTBIO

MOS:RACIST

MOS:LABEL

CC @

PARAKANYAA

who's been dabbling amongst the same articles.

This also seems like something we'd be better off reaching some form of consensus on, so it doesn't become a perpetual war.

Bluetik (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. Request been up for two weeks. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Passage Publishing → Jonathan Keeperman – More of a rescoping than a move. Passage Publishing does not really fulfill our more stringent NCORP guidelines, however its founder, Keeperman, fulfills NBASIC. This is an attempt to resolve the notability issue, as I strongly think this article should exist in some form - and most of the articles that talk about Passage Press are really about Keeperman. If the sourcing existed I would prefer it the other way around, but alas. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Frostly (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violations removed

• "Passage publishes works from online personalities, reprints and new translations of fiction and nonfiction from historical fascist and reactionary authors." This misrepresents the source, which actually says: "Like many other far-right publishers, Passage’s list is bolstered by reprints of out-of-print or public-domain books by historical fascist and reactionary writers."
• "Keeperman criticized “gay race communism,”". This misrepresents the source, which actually says: "L0m3z is obsessed with the specter of something he calls “gay race communism,”". Note that the source is careful to attribute the comments to the L0m3z persona, not Keeperman.
• "Keeperman...argued that Barack Obama is gay". This again misrepresents the source, which actually says: "He [L0m3z] casually references...conspiracy theories that Barack Obama is gay..."

Stonkaments (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Firstly, yours was the wholescale revert of multiple edits many of which were merely simply copyedits (wikilinking) or cat additions. This is not how the undo function is to be used. If you want to dispute specific edits do that, there is a reason editors make multiple edits, but large scale reverts should be exceptional.

Coming to claims of BLPVIO. Sources without fail call Keeperman far/extreme-right directly, this page was moved from Passage Publishing to his bio and we should be focusing on describing him.

About Passage Publishing: I am not sure how it is misrepresenting the source (fascist/reactionary), about online persona publishing; see body.

That his Twitter account engaged in extremist rhetoric is what lead to his notoriety (and lead to the creation of this article in the first place) which he has never disawoved (has rather taken it as a badge of honour) as our sources note, discarding that from the bio is mere obfuscation and not a BLPVIO. See Hanania's article for e.g. which has a similar trajectory even though he has tried to moderate himself since the exposure, absolutely not the case with Keeperman. I will try to tighten the prose per our source, but this info should not be excluded. Gotitbro (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

1. The way it was written implied they predominantly published new translations of fascist and reactionary authors, very different from the original source's wording of "bolstered by".

2. Which fascist authors have they published? Junger was an anti-Nazi conservative. Calling him a "radical German nationalist and militarist" (in the Guardian's words) is extremely misleading.

3. Of course the Lomez account is relevant. But comments by the twitter persona should be attributed to the persona, not Keeperman. Stonkaments (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: I am not sure what you are trying to attemp here. You have made wholescale reverts of cats and wikilinks which have nothing to do with the content you dispute (specifically Twitter and Passage). Calling the edits a "mess" is bizarre while you address none of the concerns initially raised.

You specifically added 'prominent' for Passage, a contentious label directly disputed by sources (e.g. Vox), not to mention the phrasing itself being WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL and highly contentious (we are not mainstreaming fringe publishers at enwiki). You removed the entirety of the Twitter activity which violates no tenet of WP:BLP (a rephrasing could have been in order, that does not justify removal).

1. Read the body and the sources. The lead is a summary, I doubt we need that singular reference in the lead at all. Your own analysis of what the text actually says rather than what it actually (in consonance with sources) does not justify its removal from the lead. The whole reason Passage has gotten any attention is by publishing classical fascists and their contemporary counterparts.

2. Ernst Junger is a well known militarist and national conservative, and the Guardian's framing in those terms is very well relevant on why a radical right publisher is printing his tracts.

3. That is exactly what was done.

Since, we are both now on WP:3R, @PARAKANYAA: can perhaps contribute to the discussion here as a major editor of the article. Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Realized, that Stonkaments has actually violated WP:3RR here. Please self-revert. Gotitbro (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I already thoroughly explained all of the BLP violations. That you fail to understand what’s wrong with them is not my problem.

How does the Vox source dispute that Passage Press is a prominent publisher? It calls Keeperman “a prominent figure in this world”, and says “he’s treated as a respectable figure by the mainstream”. They go on to say it’s a rather small publisher, but not at all “fringe” as you claim.

And notice how Vox describes Passage Press publishing: “Keeperman runs an outfit called Passage Press, which releases tomes from right-wingers historic (like the inter-war German radical Ernst Jünger) and contemporary (aforementioned neo-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin).” Taking fascist and reactionary from the Guardian hitpiece without the original source’s context, and adding it to the lead (without attribution no less), is a clear violation of NPOV. Your own personal opinion of why Keeperman and Passage have risen to prominence is unfounded and irrelevant.

And since counting is hard, you made 4 reverts. Stonkaments (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

My initial edits included a whole lot of other additions beyond reinsertion of dubiously removed material. Calling that a revert is unfounded. Since you still fail acknowledge your own 3RR vio, I have filed an ANI report. Snarky remarks about editors do fall under WP:PA, please desist.

Pedantism to insert "prominent" about Passage Publishing (quite clearly violative of PEACOCK and which no source backs) is very visible. Read the sources on why Passage is small, non-mainstream and politically extreme (exactly where I apply fringe from; not that I am adding it the article text but you have in wikivoice PROMO'd this far-right piblication [a thing which we don't even do for major publishers]). This is not going to work here.

BLP is a major guideline, which ones fail here exactly. Calling the Guardian article "hitpiece" tells me you are not acting in good faith here. Guardian is an RS your attempt to exclude it is not going to work. And Vox and Guardian are not the only sources here (though both agree that Keeperman and Passage publish extremist screeds and the Vox quote acts against whatever you are attempting to claim here), which support exactly what was there in the lead.

You have completely sidestepped on why was a wholesale revert done here and why the Twitter activity was excluded. The lead, cats, wikilinks, copyedits all thrown in now into pendantism about how Passage is described.

My own "opinion"? Read the sources. From the edits and comments above, it appears you are trying to mainstream a rather obscure and fringe extremist (read the sources) and I don't think this conversation is going to bear much fruit. Gotitbro (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I will now be addressing each line that was done in the mass revert here using sources currently present in the article:

• Removal of Keeperman as far-right/fringe ("Jonathan Keeperman, also known by his pseudonym "Lomez" (stylised L0m3z), is an American far-right publisher who leads Passage Publishing, also known as Passage Press, a far-right and "new right" publishing company."): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
• Addition of Passage as "prominent" (the above being changed to "Jonathan Keeperman, also known by his pseudonym "Lomez" (stylised L0m3z), leads Passage Publishing, also known as Passage Press, a prominent American far-right and "new right" publisher." also changing the focus from Keeperman whom the article is about): Firstly while Keeperman is indeed called prominent in the online New Right (United States) and Radical right (United States)/far-right by the Guardian and [re-stated from the Guardian] Vox, most other sources don't ([8], [9], [10], [11] (calls the L0mez account influential), [12], [13]). Note this is about Keeperman/L0mez himself Passage is barely described as such [in passing by the Guardian and Times, the latter calls Passage Press influential among conservative intellectuals)]. This hardly justifies the Wikipedia:Puffery for inclusion in the lead in wikivoice (we don't even do this mainstream conservatives or writers regardless of influence).
• Removal of Passage printing fascist and reactionary tracts ("Founded in 2021, Passage publishes works from online personalities, reprints and new translations of fiction and nonfiction from historical fascist and reactionary authors."): Let us go to the sources themselves:

Like many other far-right publishers, Passage’s list is bolstered by reprints of out-of-print or public-domain books by historical fascist and reactionary writers. These include books by radical German nationalist and militarist Ernst Jünger; Peter Kemp, who fought as a volunteer in Franco’s army during the Spanish civil war; and two counter-revolutionary Russian aristocrats, White Russian general Pyotr Wrangel and Prince Serge Obolensky. [14] ...
Keeperman runs an outfit called Passage Press, which releases tomes from right-wingers historic (like the inter-war German radical Ernst Jünger) and contemporary (aforementioned neo-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin). ... Tucker Carlson once blurbed a Passage Press book, a collection of essays by writer Steve Sailer, who promotes the debunked belief that racial inequalities are biological. [15] ...
His company, Passage Publishing, has printed books from a German nationalist, anti-democracy monarchists, and white supremacists promoting “human biodiversity.” [16] ...
I’m referring to L0m3z, the founder of the edgy imprint Passage Publishing, home to, among others, the racial-hereditarian guru Steve Sailer. [17]

A look at https://passage.press/ should make it clear that the Guardian's framing is correct, the exact wording appears in our body. Absolutely reason to gatekeep what Passage publishes from the lead. Though the wording can be changed, perhaps "Passage has published works". Gotitbro (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• Simply incorrect removal of UC San Diego Tritons men's basketball wikilink from bio.
• Twitter activity: Keeperman was barely notable before being linked to the L0mez online persona. That the account itself is notable in its own right is highlighted by the fact that half our sources are about it and do not mention Keeperman ([18], [19], [20]). Its link to Keeperman and extremism being a major factor in his media coverage and notoriety is firmly established by [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. To exclude this account's activity and views (things which Keeperman's proudly accepts) is simply censorship along the lines of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. This is not in anyway Wikipedia:BLPVIO. Coming to the content itself "He used the Lomez identity from 2012 to 2014 in the comment section of Steve Sailer's blog posts, and then on Twitter accounts since around 2015. The account was criticized for using slurs to describe gay people and Asians and for proposing the lynching of journalists." was changed "The account was criticized for using slurs to describe gay people and Asians." and inexplicably moved down. The Sailer connection is noted by both Guardian and Vox as is the advocacy of targetting/lynching of journalists including by the Atlantic. The promotion of Obama being gay is also noted by these sources [removed in an edit prior] as is the promotion of white nationalist memes.
• Inexplicable removal of a whole bunch of relevant wikilinks.
• Inexplicable removal of a whole bunch of cats.

No specific policy exists to justify these removals beyond affliction that a fringe political figure is portrayed as just that.

@Bluetik and Llll5032: also inviting as past contributors for comments. Gotitbro (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Anyone following this article can weigh in, there’s no need to go WP:Canvassing.

You call all of the reverts inexplicable, but I was already very clear with the explanation: your mass edits introduced a mess of errors and BLP violations, and it’s not reasonable to expect other editors to go through a long string of edits to remove all the errors and violations with surgical precision. A full revert was entirely reasonable in this case.

Calling this censorship is unreasonable and unproductive. I agree that all notable content should be included, but accurate wording and context are vitally important for a BLP. Please review WP:BLPSTYLE, which says: “BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.”

In general, you seem to be misrepresenting sources in a way that portrays Keeperman in the worst possible light, in addition to relying on the particular sources that portray Keeperman in the worst possible light. Both of which are clear violations of WP:BLPSTYLE. As just one example, what you call Lomez’s “promotion” of Obama being gay and white nationalist memes, the original source describes as *casually referencing* white nationalist memes and the conspiracy theory of Obama being gay. “Promoting” and “casually referencing” a conspiracy theory are two very different things, and this sort of nuance really matters in developing a good, accurate article.

WP:CLEANHANDS recommends you stop editing the article for one month following an edit war, which I aim to honor if you will as well. And when you begin editing again, please focus on building consensus and making smaller changes in order to collaborate with other editors. Stonkaments (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

You also say we don’t describe the prominence or influence of other mainstream conservatives in the lead in other articles, which is patently false. The lead for Tucker Carlson, for example, says: “Carlson has been described as ‘perhaps the highest-profile proponent of Trumpism’, ‘the most influential voice in right-wing media, without a close second,’ and a leading voice of white grievance politics.”

The fact that Keeperman is a prominent voice of the new right is well-documented, and is a major reason that he is notable, and as such it should be mentioned in the lead. Stonkaments (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There are valid forms of canvassing that was exactly that third opinion from past contributors directly above, since you are still going around in circles when the heft of the sources go directly against your attempts to downplay the extremist rhetoric of the person. Of course now you cite a moratorium seeing that the "Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION" is now seemingly done away with.

"Surgical precision" is exactly the reason multiple edits are made, if you are not familiar with how the revert tool is to be used don't; making reckless mass reverts and doubling down on acknowleding problems with that revert is not what anyone would call reasonable.

I haven't added promotion to the article that was a Talk page brief, the language can be tightened that does not justify removal. The white nationalist and conspiracy style rhetoric on his account is noted by all sources. It is not enwiki's problem that this individual is not flattered by whatever little coverage he has received (Wikipedia:YESBIAS).

Comparing this barely known online personality to the one of the best known broadcasters in the US is simply untenable, and then you have a multitude of other articles on mainstream conservatives which don't do puffery. This puffery should either be suppported by a multitude of sources (isn't) or as is usually the case be done away with.

Since you are making this a BLP issue and removing unflattering content while at the same time attempting puffery right in the lead sentence. I am going to take this up at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gotitbro (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not "attempting" anything other than writing a good, accurate article; your attacks and insinuations are unwelcome and violate WP:Assume good faith. Any editors uninvolved in the edit war are welcome to remove the word "prominent" if consensus is that it's inappropriate puffery. Though it's ironic that you're happy to cite the Guardian as the sole source supporting the "fascist writers" claim, but downplay the fact that the Guardian calls Passage Press a "prominent 'new right' publishing house" and Lomez a "influential Twitter persona". Stonkaments (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

AGF yes, but when articles covering extremists are called hitpieces, entirety of his extremist rhetoric on Twitter and extremist prints of his publisher [the only things which make him notable for inclusion on enwiki] are removed, it becomes hard to tread that line. Gotitbro (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please provide bibliographical information those sources which were declined as "hit pieces"? Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• "entirety of his extremist rhetoric on Twitter" False: The last version read, "The account was criticized for using slurs to describe gay people and Asians."
• "extremist prints of his publisher" False: The last version described Passage Publishing as "publishes works from online personalities, reprints and new translations of fiction and nonfiction from historical fascist and reactionary authors."
• "the only things which make him notable for inclusion on enwiki" False: Many sources support that Passage Press is a prominent publisher, and Keeperman and Lomez have been influential in new-right and mainstream conservative circles.

Please stop with the false claims and fringe/extremist rhetoric. Stonkaments (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

None of these are sources. They're quotes from a version of this article. Now @Gotitbro says that "articles covering extremists are called hitpieces" this is the part I'm concerned with. So can one of you please tell me what articles covering extremists were called hit pieces? Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a reply to Gotitbro's previous post.

No source was declined as a hit piece; I simply argued that we should follow what the majority of reliable sources say, rather than rely too extensively on the Guardian "hit piece"[[28]]. (You may disagree with the hit piece characterization, but with the gleeful doxxing, headings like "Scary ideas – and wanting to be recognized", lack of context for Junger's Storm of Steel and slapping on the "radical German nationalist and militarist" label knowing full well that would be mistaken to mean "Nazi", well...). Stonkaments (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering he was an army captain in WWII and a censor in Paris, my sense is that there at least one person simplifying Junger's complicated relationship to the Third Reich here. But you're inferring that the reading of "radical German nationalist and militarist" (accurate) would be mistaken as Nazi (inaccurate) nobody else on this page and no source is making that inference. Furthermore if you're arguing against prioritizing the Guardian for describing this far-right figure as a far-right figure then I'd ask if you have any reliable sources that describe him in a different, and contradictory, way. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the only one inferring it; Keeperman himself has denounced the Guardian article's description of Junger as intentionally deceptive and misleading readers to believe "Nazi".

My specific complaint re: the Guardian article is with the final sentence of the lead that you restored: "Passage publishes works from online personalities, reprints and new translations of fiction and nonfiction from historical fascist and reactionary authors." This cites only the Guardian article, and further misrepresents that source by overemphasizing the "historical fascist and reactionary authors" in Passage's catalog.

Compare that to the much more balanced and responsible description of Passage publishing that can be found in the Vox article: "Keeperman runs an outfit called Passage Press, which releases tomes from right-wingers historic (like the inter-war German radical Ernst Jünger) and contemporary (aforementioned neo-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin)."[29] Stonkaments (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This is far too overly-specific to the extent that it seems to occlude that Jünger and Yarvin are both right-wing with Jünger having, as I mentioned, a very complicated relationship to Naziism and with Yarvin being one of the founders of the neo-fascist Dark Enlightenment philosophical project. This language doesn't respect BLP - it just occludes what is informative about the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged and simply decided I would deal with it later. After skimming the wall of text above, I will say this:

We should probably be including a lot of the information suggested, but I find the way that it was being inserted before written in a way that seemed... needlessly inflammatory? I didn't revert other than the one obvious one. We do have to be very careful about how we say some of these things, especially because of BLP. For example some of the things are qualified in the sources and it was inserted into this article without qualification. That is problematic. To maintain NPOV I would also advise that we find a way to say it without, as is common in these kinds of articles, beating the reader over the head with labels. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I did not read this whole discussion either. Why did you restore the article then? It's really not necessary at all to force talk of fascism into the introduction. We all know how people will read this. VGHilliard (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Is having this article "necessary"? And the description of how the books that were being published is, while not perfect, fairly low-key compared to the problems before ... my gripe was with the various -isms directed at him as a person and the mischaracterizations of what he said. Describing the ideologies of the books he tends to publish is probably fine (I'd phrase it differently). You just removed the description about the works entirely, which is a poor reason given this is also about his work as publisher.

It's not my job to protect this website's reputation. People can think whatever they want. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

How about something like: "published the work of authors such as Junger, ... and ..."? It is really not a necessity to have some journalist summarize the work of someone like Junger as "fascist" or "reactionary" without further explanation. It's simply not informative to the kinds of people reading this article. VGHilliard (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Or, well, I should have said: Let them summarize it, but why include it in the introduction? Does it always have to be the most inflammatory angle possible? VGHilliard (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a major part of the subject's notability based on the available sources. So it makes sense to have it in the lead in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I do so love the idea that calling a far-right publisher a far-right publisher who publishes far-right books written by far-right historical figures is somehow a BLP violation. This line of reasoning would seem to imply that being accurately described is somehow an aspersion. This is not the case. It's just accurate description. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)