Talk:Jordan Lasker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: ...
Close

"a hacker"

@Zanahary: - Regarding this edit; so you're right that we don't want to imply Lasker did the hack, but when you say "Lasker had obtained the information from a hacker", do you actually know the hack was conducted by a single person? In other words, do you know the hack wasn't conducted by a group? NickCT (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That's true. I don't know if it was one person or more. Maybe some source says. But if not, we can just say it was "obtained from a hack". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Fair. I'll reword. I guess I point it out just because an interesting part of this story is just what Lasker's connection was with the person or people who actually did the hack. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
If any sources discuss it, feel free to summarize them. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I can't find any that do. Interestingly, the Times just calls Lasker an "intermediary" between them and the hackers. NickCT (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
That sounds good and clear as far as the ambiguity of whether Lasker hacked. I would include it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Here's a source that calls the hacker "an anime loving neo-nazi"...... Colorful.... Can we work that description into this article? NickCT (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
How did Lasker get involved with an Anime loving neo-nazi? Where do these people hang out? NickCT (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't know, but that's a question for a newsroom, not an encyclopedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Sure. I would also include that he thanked the hacker and encouraged further hacks. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Ridiculous article

Someone clearly hates this man a lot. No comment there. but no need for an article either Zagreus99 (talk) 04:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If you don't think this guy meets notability criteria, you should take the article to WP:AfD. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for Edits or Deletion

Likely impersonation account that has been blocked, not a legit request. Veg Historian (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Hello!

This page is about me, and many of the details on it are incorrect. This page seems to have been made by someone malicious, with the intent being to defame me. It includes multiple claims that are manifestly untrue, but are supported by sources that are just repeating falsehoods alleged by anonymous sources.

For example, under Background, the only true details are "Lasker was a PhD student at Texas Tech University." and "Lasker uses the X account Crémieux Recueil named after the 19th-century French politician Adolphe Crémieux. In July 2025 he had more than 260,000 followers." Otherwise, it's all false allegations. The opening section, "Career", and "Activism" (I have never been an activist) also contain defamatory errors and allegations that lack merit. Regarding errant allegations, I was under the impression these were not allowed on Wikipedia, or else people could simply lie about someone and then use that lie published elsewhere as a source, as seems to have been done here.

I'd like to request someone edit this to remove errors so that it is no longer defamatory. Since that would leave behind almost no content, a better option might be to remove this, since I am not actually a notable person and I don't yet deserve a Wikipedia article.

I've not filed for deletion or made any edits because, as I understand it, you're not supposed to edit your own page on Wikipedia. If that's incorrect, I can go ahead and edit away problematic statements on the page or file for deletion, but I'd like to know if that's appropriate first. LJLasker (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jordan, thank you for coming to the talk page to request your changes as opposed to making the edits yourself. I've added a {{COI edit request}} template to the top of your message to get a better chance at the request being reviewed. I won't be able to review the article in depth, but at the very least I will tag it so someone can verify the sources. If you have links to reliable sources that contradict the current claims, those would be helpful. Thanks again! Taffer😊💬(she/they) 05:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!
Regarding finding reliable sources that contradict the current claims, a lot of the current claims are just hearsay from people who, in some cases, I've never even met or who have a documented history of distorting the facts. No one else has done profiles on me, and the information to do those things isn't available since I try to be a private person.
Should I write something disconfirming these claims, or would that not count as a suitable source? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that I wouldn't count as a source. LJLasker (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
We need to confirm who this is. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I’ve blocked them until they prove their identity to the WMF as we should always do in situations like this. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Doug Weller I was unaware of that procedure, apologies. Am I right in assuming that would be something to bring to UAA in the future or would it be a different noticeboard? Taffer😊💬(she/they) 19:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I guess UAA although AN would also work. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Assuming that this is actually the article subject, I doubt this request will work, in that while I cannot attest to the specific details or representations of them as given in this article, as I did not write it, the sources used here are, for Wikipedia's purposes, considered WP:generally reliable. Whatever you or the subject thinks about it, per our policies we have no reason to believe they are not true.
If his account is verified he can do a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, though I'm not sure how greats the odds of that are. BLPREQUESTDELETE is done for marginal subjects who do not pass the WP:GNG (general notability guideline), which is typically passed by having at least three sources that are 1) independent of the subject 2) reliable (so published in a mainstream newspaper or something; with more mainstream sources you can always check WP:RSP) 3) significant in its coverage of the subject (at the bare minimum, if there are numerous sources, >100 words).
The "best sources" here are:
There are also:
So, that is a very good WP:THREE (three best sources), you have multiple profiles published fully about you, whether you wished for them or not, as well as many others, and so I doubt a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would succeed, as you do plainly pass the WP:GNG. And I only checked what is currently on the page. Given that all these sources are considered by consensus reliable, if this is brought to wider attention I doubt you would succeed in getting it removed. While I have not edited this article and have no stake in it, you will not have much luck, I assume. All of the facts that you say are not true, while I have no comment on their factual accuracy, have been reported in several mainstream outlets. I have removed one source that did not mention you so was WP:SYNTH, I have no comment on what happens to this article, and make no claim to the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of our current article on you, but am giving you an honest evaluation of your prospects and the sourcing per Wikipedia's standards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I made a minor verbiage change and folded the "activism" section into the career section. Being an advocate of a theory does not make you an activist, and no sources call him an activist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I added more of his papers to selected publications, as I think it better to have a more complete output available (and including a single one was just odd), but believe the subject would find this unobjectionable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@LJLasker, it would be useful if you told us what is untrue and why. Jahaza (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.
Since you claim to the be the subject of the article, I want to thank you for using the COI process. It does seem that you meet notability standards, so I don't think an article deletion is going to happen in this particular case.
LJLasker - It appears that an administrator has blocked you until you provide appropriate verification to the WMF that you are who you say you are. That process will need to be completed for you to continue on in this process.
I would encourage you to read our COI process, which can be found at WP:COI. A simplified guide can be found at WP:COIE. This guide will help explain how Wikipedia facilitates COIs, as well as links to the edit request process and the format you should use to ask for edits. Since you are a person, it would likely also be beneficial for you to read WP:BLPEDIT, which explains how Wikipedia treats the relationship between a person and their page.
Please feel free to reopen an edit request once you've read all of that and have X to Y edits ready for review. Happy editing! Meepmeepyeet (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
This account was not the real Jordan Lasker it was an impersonation. This impersonation was very likely Captain Occam who was ArbCom blocked a few years. He has been impersonating Jordan Lasker, myself as other Wikipedia users recently over email and has been flooding ArbCom with ridiculous emails claiming I belong to an anti-fascist network. Veg Historian (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2025 (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.

Lead

@PARAKANYAA: How are the sentences in the lead not supported by the sentences and citations in the body? Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions "He has promoted eugenics and natalism. On X and Substack, Lasker is known for compiling charts on what he calls the "Black-White IQ gap". His research on race and intelligence has been criticized by academics as an example of pseudoscience entering mainstream academia."
Neither the criticisms of him as pseudoscientific or the charts being about the "Black-White IQ gap" are mentioned in the body. The only mention of eugenics in the body is about the alleged reddit, not him, but we say he does in wikivoice in the lead? That is why I put the tag there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Okay, sure. Lasker is a "pseudoscientist" who (gasp) supports eugenics (as if most people don't already support eugenics to some extent in some form).
Anyway the banner has to be excluded since the body has changed. Don't you agree that the article looks much nicer without that ugly banner at the top? Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The banner is supposed to get you to fix the problem. We are not meant to have "nice" looking articles if they still violate the MoS.
You still have not fixed the problem, the criticisms of his work as pseudoscientific are only in the lead. I will try to fix this, but you should prioritize fixing the problem over removing the banner. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, the banner did motivate me to (attempt to) fix the problem. I really believe that I fixed the problem, as you explained it and as I understood it. I'm surprised that you don't agree, but I'll just let you do your thing. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Where in the body of the article did it address the criticisms of the work as pseudoscientific? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The first sentence of Jordan Lasker#Career. I also made an edit to avoid the wikivoice regarding the alleged support for eugenics that you mentioned, and made sure that the BWIQG is mentioned directly in the body. Like I said, I believe I fixed the problem, as you explained it and as I understood it. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That says nothing about criticism at all. Hence the tag. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
I still don't agree. The criticism was right there in the first sentence. Regardless, I'm glad that you fixed it to your satisfaction. Zero Contradictions (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

"Black people are genetically inferior to whites"

The article states that "Lasker as Crémieux has posted comments on X implying that Black people are genetically inferior to whites", with citations to articles from The Verge and Mother Jones that do not show such comments and read more like (extremely biased) opinion pieces than actual reporting. ~2026-21426-65 (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right that the current article and those sources are heavily biased and factually incorrect, but there's nothing that you can do about it. As I've written before, this is another example where Wikipedia's community and policies fail to understand the fact-value distinction. Cremieux is just stating facts, but the sources that you mentioned (and most of their readers) are misconstruing them as statements about value (e.g. "genetically inferior"). This also involves a failure to understand that every value can only be judged by another value.
There's more that could be said, but you just need to accept that there's nothing that can be done about this (for now, anyway). Most people and most editors are simply not going to understand the points that I just wrote, so the past consensuses, resolutions, and editing policies are not going to change. Unless they change significantly, then it's futile to rebel against them. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI