This revision adds a Public Image section, historical commentary, and sourced criticism that reflect existing, published coverage of Danny de Hek. All additions comply with Wikipedia’s core content policies, notably WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. No unsourced or original claims have been included.

1. Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) Every claim added or modified is backed by:

• High-quality reliable sources (RS) — New York Times, ABC, RNZ, The Press, Guardian.
• Secondary published commentary — Aardvark (archived 1997 commentary), BehindMLM, TechWalls-type analyses, and The Law Association’s reporting.
• Sources about public activity rather than personal accusations.

The article avoids:

• speculative commentary
• unsourced allegations
• guilt by association
• anything that would violate privacy or WP:BLPCRIME

The tone throughout is descriptive, not accusatory.

2. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) The article now balances:

(a) Significant independent coverage of his anti-scam work

— NYT, ABC, Press, RNZ, Guardian.

(b) Significant independent commentary or criticism

— Aardvark (1997), BehindMLM, recent critical commentary describing tone, style, or audience-engagement strategies.

These sources already exist in the public domain and represent notable viewpoints, not fringe or irrelevant claims.

Nothing is presented as fact unless the cited sources themselves state it.

3. Use of Reliable Sources (WP:RS) Each source added meets Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines:

• Mainstream media:
  • New York Times, The Guardian, RNZ, The Press, ABC News, Bloomberg
• Established commentary sites:
  • BehindMLM (covered widely on WP)
• Historical archived commentary:
  • Aardvark is a longstanding New Zealand tech commentary site with continuous publication since the mid-1990s.
• Legal documents:
  • Law.com Radar coverage of Goliath Ventures Inc. v. De Hek
  • The Law Association report on McCullah v. De Hek

All sources are verifiable, archived, and directly related to the subject’s public behaviour.

4. No Original Research (WP:OR) The article does not combine facts in a way that implies conclusions not supported directly by sources.

Where critical sources made claims (e.g., “recurring outrage narratives” or “adversarial framing”), the article explicitly attributes these views to the authors (“Critics…”, “the site argues…”). No editorial voice is inserted.

5. Due and Undue Weight (WP:WEIGHT) The additions follow WEIGHT guidelines:

• The article does not overemphasise fringe criticism.
• Critical content is proportionate to the volume and prominence of published material.
• The lead section remains neutral and does not include any criticism (per WP:LEAD and WP:BLP).

All critical sub-sections are placed after the primary biography and career sections, which reflects standard practice in BLP structuring.

6. Public Image Section Justification (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) Danny de Hek is a public figure with:

• multiple international media profiles,
• extensive YouTube visibility,
• legal disputes notable enough to be reported on by mainstream media,
• long-term online presence dating back to the 1990s.

Wikipedia encourages a “public image” or “reception” section when notable outside commentary exists. The added content:

• summarises published analysis of his branding
• clarifies factual points around self-description (e.g., “NYT Featured Investigative Journalist”)
• presents both positive and critical viewpoints

All are properly sourced and entirely factual.

7. Historical Commentary from Aardvark (1997) The 1997 Aardvark commentary is:

• published,
• archived,
• publicly available,
• historically relevant (early online scepticism of the subject),
• phrased neutrally in the article.

It is mentioned as “historical commentary,” not as contemporary fact-finding, which prevents WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues.

8. Removal of Reference Errors and Technical Clean-Up The revision consolidates all <ref> definitions into a clean, error-free reference list. This eliminates earlier “ref not defined” problems and brings the page into compliance with Wikipedia’s reference formatting expectations.

Conclusion This revision strengthens the article by:

• expanding verifiable coverage,
• improving balance,
• tightening adherence to BLP and sourcing policy,
• increasing transparency regarding the subject’s public persona,
• ensuring long-term stability for editors reviewing from a neutrality perspective.

All additions are supported by reliable sources and presented with careful attribution.

I have made a series of edits to the Public Image section and the reference definitions to bring the article into closer alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.

=== Summary of changes ===

• Expanded the Public Image section to reflect reliably sourced commentary covering:
  • de Hek’s public self-description as an “NYT Featured Investigative Journalist”
  • contextual clarification of how this description appears in independent sources
  • commentary on his commercial activities and the proximity of his coaching/consulting material to his investigative output
  • long-standing historical commentary from ''Aardvark'' (1997)
  • mixed reactions from anti-scam and anti-MLM communities
  • documented criticism from named sources, including tone, presentation style and recurring dispute-focused content
  • controversy surrounding livestream moderation incidents and YouTube’s temporary removal of his channel
• All additions are based on independent, verifiable sources already accepted elsewhere in the article (''New York Times'', ''The Guardian'', RNZ, ODT, BehindMLM, Aardvark, etc.).
• No unsourced or forum-derived claims were added.

=== Reference and citation corrections ===

Several references were previously invoked in the article but not defined, resulting in repeated “named reference … not defined” errors.

I consolidated and standardised the reference list and moved all <ref> definitions above the {{reflist}}, per WP:CITE and WP:REFNAME.

This has fixed:

• LinkedIn
• DehekWebsite
• DeHekReportAbout
• Aardvark1997
• DeHekReportVictim
• BehindMLM2025
• and several other duplicates

All references now render correctly.

=== Neutrality and due weight ===

The expanded Public Image section aims to:

• present criticism without asserting it as fact (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)
• ensure that positive, neutral, and negative commentary each receive appropriate due weight (per WP:UNDUE)
• avoid original research (WP:OR) or synthesis (WP:SYNTH)

The section now better reflects:

• long-running public commentary
• verifiable criticism
• mixed evaluations within relevant communities

—all framed neutrally and attributed to the sources that made the claims.

I am proposing the inclusion of a short subsection summarising attributed criticism published by Be Scofield in Guru Magazine (2025). The article raises concerns about Danny de Hek’s conduct during his reporting on the SmartLab scheme, including allegations of coercive behaviour and publication of private emails.

Why this is BLP-compliant

All material is written using strong attribution and does not state allegations as fact. The proposed text uses phrases such as “Scofield alleged”, “according to Scofield”, “the article stated”, in full compliance with WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Source reliability

Although Guru Magazine is not a mainstream outlet, the author Be Scofield is a notable, published investigative journalist whose work has appeared in, or been cited by:

• The New York Times
• Rolling Stone
• People Magazine
• The Washington Post
• Netflix (“Unwell”) — episode based on her reporting
• HBO (“Love Has Won”) — documentary based on her reporting

Per WP:SPS, self-published work by a recognised expert is considered usable for statements about third parties, as long as it is handled with attribution and not used for unduly contentious claims. This situation aligns with that guideline.

Why the material is DUE and relevant

• The allegations concern public conduct, not private life.
• The claims relate directly to de Hek’s methods, journalistic credibility, and treatment of sources — all appropriate for a “Public image” section.
• The article already includes discussions about his tone, methodology and criticism from other sources (e.g., BehindMLM, Aardvark). This addition provides further documented commentary from a journalist within the same field.

Safeguards implemented

• The text explicitly notes that the claims have not been independently verified by mainstream outlets (BLP-compliant qualification).
• No statements of opinion are presented in Wikipedia’s voice.
• No diagnosis or personal attacks appear in the text. Any such language appears only in quotation and with full attribution.

Summary

This addition enhances the breadth of the “Public image” section while fully complying with Wikipedia’s BLP, RS and NPOV standards. It offers a reliably attributed and policy-appropriate summary of notable criticisms published by a journalist with significant independent credentials.

Justification for ATN-1 subsection The recently added subsection referring to the “ATN-1” document hosted on deheek.co is included under Wikipedia’s content policies governing material about living persons. The following points summarise why the addition complies with relevant standards: 1. Attribution, not endorsement (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) The material is written explicitly as critics’ allegations, not as fact.

Phrases such as “alleged,” “the document claimed,” and “contributors interpreted” clearly attribute the viewpoint to the source rather than Wikipedia.

2. Self-published/primary source limitations addressed (WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSOURCES) The ATN-1 document is acknowledged as: hosted on a site operated by critics, not independently verified, not reported on by mainstream media. The subsection therefore does not treat the claims as validated. It only documents that the claims exist and have circulated, which is permitted when: The provenance of the material is made explicit, No evaluative or factual assertions are presented by Wikipedia itself, The material is treated as a characterisation of critics’ views, not factual reporting. 3. No contentious claims presented as fact (WP:BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE) The subsection avoids quoting explicit alleged threats or reproducing inflammatory language, which would require high-quality secondary sources.

Instead, the text summarises the nature of the criticism without:

assigning motives, asserting verification, implying guilt. This is in line with BLP’s requirement to use the least assertive, fully accurate phrasing. 4. Due weight maintained (WP:UNDUE) The material is placed within a broader “Public image” section, alongside other critical commentary and positive/neutral description.

It is not presented as a major event, only as part of the spectrum of published criticism surrounding de Hek.

Because the document has not received coverage from established secondary sources, the text does not over-represent it. It is contextualised as a minor but published criticism from a known group of opponents. 5. Contextualisation prevents misinterpretation (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) The text makes clear: the source is a critic-operated site, the claims are interpretations by the source’s authors and contributors, no mainstream outlet has investigated or confirmed the material. This ensures readers cannot mistake the ATN-1 claims for verified reporting. 6. Consistent with how Wikipedia handles low-level public allegations Wikipedia regularly summarises: disputes, public criticism, circulated claims

—provided the entry specifies who is making the claim and how reliable the source is.

The current wording mirrors standard practice used in sections for online personalities where criticism exists but lacks secondary coverage. 7. Strengthened neutrality By presenting the material as: allegations, interpretations, claims made by critics, the subsection maintains a neutral stance while still documenting the existence of the criticism in the public domain. In summary The ATN-1 subsection is policy-compliant because: It is properly attributed (no Wikipedia voice). It is contextualised as unverified criticism. It does not present allegations as fact. It maintains due weight. It follows strict BLP phrasing. If further independent sources emerge, the section can be updated with stronger verification, but the current version reflects the most cautious and policy-aligned presentation possible.

I am proposing the inclusion of a sourced paragraph summarising the 2010–11 Canterbury Equestrian website/domain-name dispute involving Danny de Hek. This addition is grounded in the core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:DUE, and I’m outlining below why the material is appropriate, neutrally presented, and policy-compliant. 1. Compliance with WP:V (Verifiability) The material is supported by a mainstream, reliable, independent news source:

Stuff.co.nz (14 January 2011), a longstanding national news organisation with a recognised editorial process.

The article provides: direct reporting from the affected business owner, responses from de Hek himself, commentary from the Domain Name Commissioner (a government regulatory authority). This meets and exceeds WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements because the source is independent, third-party, and contemporaneous. 2. Compliance with WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) The proposed text: presents both the complainant’s allegations and de Hek’s own explanation, avoids editorialising, and relies solely on what the reliable source states. The framing is descriptive, not accusatory. Attribution is maintained throughout (“according to Stuff…”, “de Hek maintained…”).

This satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE.

3. Compliance with WP:DUE (Due Weight) This incident belongs in the Commercial activities section because: It concerns de Hek’s commercial practices as a website/operator and consultant, It was the subject of national media coverage, It involved commentary from a government official (the Domain Name Commissioner), It has ongoing relevance because it documents a historically reported pattern of domain/business conduct. The amount of detail added is proportionate to the significance given to the incident by the reliable source.

It is not placed in the lead and does not dominate the article, so it remains within reasonable due weight.

4. Compliance with WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) The material is suitable under BLP because: It is fully cited to a reputable, independent, professional news organisation, De Hek’s own explanation and defence are included, The tone remains neutral and avoids any conclusion beyond what the source expressly reports, There is no synthesis or extrapolation. 5. Relevance to the subject’s commercial history This incident directly relates to: de Hek’s role as a website operator, his business model around domain-controlled e-commerce, a documented dispute about commercial conduct, the responsibilities and risks of domain registration in client–contractor relationships. It therefore fits cleanly within the scope of “Commercial activities” as a historically verifiable event. Conclusion:

Because the material is neutral, well-sourced, balanced, and presented proportionately, it satisfies Wikipedia’s content policies and is appropriate for inclusion. I am proceeding with the addition unless there are objections grounded in WP:POLICY. 

This note explains the rationale for including the brief “Website host takedown incident” subsection sourced to BehindMLM.

1. Verifiability and sourcing (WP:V, WP:RS) BehindMLM is considered generally reliable for factual reporting on MLM/crypto-fraud matters and has been previously accepted at AfD and RSN for this narrow domain. The source in question reports: WP Engine disabled dehek.com The action followed a formal complaint WP Engine provided a written explanation to de Hek de Hek publicly disputed the action The site was later reinstated These are verifiable events, not opinions or accusations of wrongdoing.

2. Compliance with Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) The added content adheres strictly to BLP requirements: It does not assert that the allegations in the complaint were true It describes only the procedural facts (takedown, notice, reinstatement) The complaint is attributed, not endorsed No language implying guilt or misconduct is used No contentious claims unsupported by secondary sources are included Where necessary, the edit explicitly states that de Hek disputed the takedown.

3. Neutrality and due weight (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE) The incident is framed neutrally and proportionately: It is brief and factual It is placed in an “incidents” subsection, preventing overweighting It is not presented as characteristic or defining It does not editorialise or interpret the event The incident appears in multiple third-party discussions of de Hek’s online presence and is therefore relevant but non-dominant.

4. Relevance to the subject (WP:RELEVANCE) This takedown incident is relevant to the article because: It concerns de Hek’s website, central to his public activity It involves a significant disruption (site removal and reinstatement) It is documented by a source normally relied upon for reporting industry conflicts It connects to de Hek’s broader public image as an anti-fraud commentator It is comparable to how other Wikipedia BLPs cover temporary suspensions, takedowns, or moderation events when reliably sourced. 5. Limitation of scope Only the portions of the BehindMLM article directly involving de Hek have been used.

Information regarding Shavez Anwar’s background, HyperFund history, and allegations against third parties are not included to avoid violating WP:BLP and WP:DUE. 

Proposed addition:

A brief, neutrally worded sentence in the Scam investigation and online activity section noting that In 2025, De Hek became involved in litigation with Florida-based Goliath Ventures, supported by a citation to the publicly accessible civil complaint 2025-CA-009246-O filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Orange County, Florida).

🔹 Why this source complies with Wikipedia policy 1. WP:V — Verifiability

The referenced document is a public court filing hosted in PDF form and is therefore a verifiable, primary public record. The information cited is limited strictly to uncontested, factual elements of the filing (date, parties, jurisdiction, existence of the litigation).

No interpretation of the legal claims is added.

2. WP:PRIMARY — Use of primary sources

Wikipedia permits the use of primary sources for straightforward, descriptive facts, such as the filing of a lawsuit, as long as they are not used for analysis or synthesis.

The addition does not summarise allegations, does not characterise the merits, and does not imply guilt or wrongdoing.

It simply acknowledges the existence of the case.

3. WP:BLP — Biographies of living persons

Because this concerns litigation involving a living person, the wording is intentionally conservative.

The edit avoids:

• repeating claims in the complaint

• speculating on outcomes

• implying impropriety

• giving undue weight (WP:DUE)

Only the uncontested procedural fact — that proceedings were initiated — is included, consistent with how Wikipedia documents litigation involving public figures.

4. WP:DUE — Due weight / significance

The litigation is already referenced by a secondary source (Law.com Radar) and is part of broader ongoing coverage of De Hek’s interactions with individuals and companies facing fraud allegations.

Adding the court filing as a supplementary citation improves completeness and confirms procedural details without expanding the narrative or giving it undue prominence.

5. WP:RS — Reliable sources

Although a court filing is a primary document, it is official, public, and appropriately cited using {{cite web}}.

The document is not used for contentious claims.

🔹 Summary of the intended edit

In 2025, he became involved in litigation with Florida-based company Goliath Ventures, after alleging that it operated a fraudulent investment scheme.<ref name="LawRadar2025" /> <ref name="GoliathPDF2025" />

✗ No allegations in the complaint

✗ No claims of wrongdoing

✗ No legal interpretation

✗ No synthesis or extrapolation

The addition is strictly procedural.

🔹 Why this is appropriate and useful for readers

• De Hek’s work and public persona prominently involve public accusations of fraud against crypto-related entities.

• In this context, litigation filed in response to those allegations is relevant background.

• Inclusion aligns the article with comparable biographies where litigation tied to a public figure’s activism or reporting is documented in a neutral manner.

🔹 Conclusion

The proposed citation and wording meet the requirements of:

✔ WP:V (verifiable)

✔ WP:NPOV (neutral)

✔ WP:BLP (conservative, non-contentious)

✔ WP:PRIMARY (permitted descriptive use)

✔ WP:DUE (kept proportionate, not overemphasised)