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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

I think part of the problem, and this is why fringe is a relevant policy, is that there is a network of fringe academics who have created a pseudoscientific ecosystem where, yes, they do come to each others defense. Examples such as Woodley, Pinker, etc. are a core part of it. So it's pretty easy to find one fringe figure trying to legitimize another fringe figure. This is a pernicious problem and, arguably, a much more urgent one for academia than a maybe-embellished biography. And this problem has a direct bearing on us in this discussion because we are in a position of having to adjudicate which apologia for Cofnas is coming from within that fringe ecosystem. I think @Gotitbro has done excelent work in that regard. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 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)

"Scientific racism" is not a synonym of "race realism". Of course, the terms are closely related, but the lead of our article about scientific racism also makes this distinction: "Scientific racism [...] is the pseudoscientific belief that the human species is divided into [...] "races", and that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racial discrimination, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. [...] The division of humankind into biologically separate groups [...] is referred to as [...] racial realism, race realism, or [...]" In other words, "race realism" is the belief that distinct races exist, while "scientific racism" is an extension of that belief which additionally posits that some races are superior to others.

Also see this paper about a Cofnas paper. Relevant quotes: "[...] racial realism: the idea that the human species is naturally divided into many clusters of biologically discrete/different populations. [...] racial realism is historically inseparable from scientific racism [...] Although 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."

Many reliable sources say something like "Cofnas, a self-described 'race realist'", but I haven't seen any that say he's a proponent of "scientific racism". Unless and until someone provides evidence that reliable sources often call him a "proponent of scientific racism", our use of this expression is a violation of WP:BLP. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I provided a bunch of sources over on Talk:Jason Arday, but honestly I wonder why you couldn't just google it. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

None of the sources you cited say "is an advocate/proponent of scientific racism". Honestly I wonder... whatever. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

[] Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

So what? That source says "Critics have described Cofnas’ work as a form of scientific racism, a term used to describe attempts to justify racial hierarchies using scientific claims." Again: "Critics have described" is not the same as "he is an advocate of". Honestly I wonder... — Chrisahn (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

And "advocating for scientific racism" [] "ties to" [] Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Quotes from your first source : "self-described 'race realist'", "has been accused of racism and has made a number of controversial statements, including writing a blog advocating for scientific racism in 2024", "self-described 'race realist'", (quoting a letter in support of Cofnas's suspension) "'his racist and white supremacist ideas'". Conclusion: Even that source mostly uses more cautious wording, e.g. "has been accused", and doesn't simply call him "a proponent of scientiific racism". The source also calls him "the researcher who sparked the pile-on", wording one wouldn't find in sources that strive to be neutral and factual. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Quotes from your second source : "ties to 'scientific racism'", "association with controversial 'race science', also known as the widely-discredited scientific racism", "advocates for what he calls 'race realism'". Yet another source that uses cautious wording and doesn't call him "a proponent of scientiific racism". — Chrisahn (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

wikt:race realist is indeed just a mere euphemism for listing scientific racism as is (it was popularized for that exact purpose in the first place). Those arguing for the 'scientific basis' basis of races and calling themselves "race realists" and claiming to be researchers on the topic, claiming inherent inferiorities (all the while advocating for racial segregation) is as good a case as it gets for calling this for what it is.

Pedantism for what WP:FRINGE advocates like Cofnas say does not stand up to scrutiny. And Wikipedia is indeed not a soapbox for their fringe however they may describe that as. Gotitbro (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

"just a mere euphemism" – That claim is not supported by your source wikt:race realist. According to that page, the term has two meanings. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

And it has been highlighted why the primary sense (and really the only one used in discourse) is indeed what is meant here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not the only one used in the discourse. See e.g. this scientific paper, which clearly uses "race realism" as neither a synonym nor a euphemism for "scientific racism". — Chrisahn (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

"Cofnas makes it problematic by representing the theory as scientific.".I am unsure it says what you think it says. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Please read the previous comments carefully. We're talking about whether "race realism" is "just a mere euphemism" for "scientific racism", as Gotitbro claimed. The paper shows that this claim is false. So do many others, see my comment below. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No it does not, it makes no judgment other than to say that Connas's work is not scientific. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. "No it does not" – What exactly do you mean? If you read the paper, you will find that it defines the term "racial realism" and calls it "not problematic in and of itself". It later uses the term "scientific racism" and is clearly highly critical of it. It's obvious that the authors use "racial realism" as a neutral term and not as a euphemism for "scientific racism". — Chrisahn (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Other scientific papers in which "race realism" or "racial realism" are used as a neutral terms, not as a synonyms or euphemisms for "scientific racism":

• "Race realism goes both ways"
• "Against the Reification of Race in Bioethics: Anti-Racism without Racial Realism"
• "What ‘Biological Racial Realism’ Should Mean"
• "Basic Racial Realism"
• "Basic racial realism, social constructionism, and the ordinary concept of race"
• "Realism, Antirealism, and Conventionalism about Race"
• "Biological Race Realism and the Legacy of Racial Pseudoscience"
• "Can social racial realism pass? Problems with ‘racial passing’ as an analytic category"
• "Critically Assessing the Invalidity of Race Realism and Finding Solutions to Educate Society on Racial TheorySolutions to Educate Society on Racial Theory"

Of course, "race realism" is often used as a euphemism for "scientific racism" or other forms of racism. But it's also often used in a neutral sense and with a meaning that is different from "scientific racism".

— Chrisahn (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

"conclude that there is a complete lack of scientific support for the existence of human races, and that hence the impasse is a mirage" So again this says there is no scientific basis to "race realism", read wp:synth. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. The sources show that "race realism" is often used as a neutral term and not as a euphemism for "scientific racism". These two terms do not mean the same thing. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

How is that a neutral term? ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a single cited source mentioned above explicitly making the remarkable claim that "the phrase 'race realism' is a neutral term". Please point me to such a definitive statement. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

The papers I linked above use "race realism" as a neutral term (and in particular, not as a synonym or euphemism for "scientific racism"). One of them says "the theory of racial realism is not problematic in and of itself". Although it goes on to say "Cofnas makes it problematic by representing the theory as scientific", that's pretty close to saying "the phrase 'racial realism' is not problematic in and of itself". — Chrisahn (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean "neutral" in the sense that they don't condemn the term or the theory. They discuss it (and generally reject the theory), but they treat it as a reasonable subject for a scientific paper. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You should take any issues up at Talk:Scientific racism (where we've redirected the term for more than a decade after the main, racial realism, pseudoscientific cruft was AfD'd).

You can further try Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Though your assertion that there is some real distinction between these terms is unfounded and is unlikely to find traction. A sidepage like this isn't really a forum for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims against consensus at enwiki. Gotitbro (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

You are cherry picking. And obviously. The paragraph continues Cofnas makes it problematic by representing the theory as scientific. He does this when he suggests that science could soon discover racially grounded genetic explanations of differences in intelligence between human populations (Citation2020, pp. 126–127). This way of representing unproven metaphysical theories as if they are scientifically sound crucially oversteps the extent of speculation usually tolerated in philosophy journals. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Is what Cofnas is doing meaningfully different from suggesting that genes help explain Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, as Cochran and Harpending (admittedly having some questionable political views of their own) previously proposed, with the exception that he is making a genetic hypothesis for different groups than Cochran and Harpending made in their Ashkenazi Jewish paper? His hypothesis might very well be wrong in regards to this, as would the authors of Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, but he'll likely argue that science is a field of inquiry and discovery, where wrong hypotheses are meant to be rejected based on evidence while right hypotheses are meant to be accepted based on evidence. He simply disagrees with the mainstream, as presumably do Cochran and Harpending, about where exactly the evidence will go and about what exactly it will show. ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as he has not restricted himself to publishing academic papers, but has expanded into activism. Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas argues that his hypothesis, if ever proven true, is the only way that Wokeness and its underlying premises can ever be decisively discredited and debunked (his own words and argument, not my own!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Xgk9e0CLo and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggyWQ1IlEj4 ; so, you're right! He is an activist and thus does more than just publish academic papers! ~2026-50008-57 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

used as a neutral terms such as to refer to concepts and ideas in completely different academic fields that have no relation to the work Cofnas engages in nor the way Cofnas employs the term, such as Hochman (2025) that you provided. This is akin to saying that a physics professor who is talking about a quantity with magnitude and direction, when using the term vector is in fact possibly discussing a DNA molecule passing between two organisms. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Water is wet, no matter how many sources do not explicitly say it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Most scientists define wetness as a liquid’s ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet, but can make other sensation. — Longewal (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

References

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)

I boldly added the open letter and counter-letter, since they received significant international coverage. It doesn't particularly matter who signed which ones. Per the addition by @Rhododendrites:, while it's true the counter-letter received substantially more signatories than the ~2,000 reported in the The National at the time (4,517 at time of this writing), and I don't think dwelling on precise numbers is critical, I think there are some caveats regarding using the Google Doc as a primary source. By August 28 (the day Cofnas' suspension was lifted) the first petition was closed, stating "this campaign is no longer accepting signatures," with 955 signatories. The counter letter against Cofnas appears to still be open to accepting signatures, and the list of signatures doesn't appear to list date signed nor show history, so it might be somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison, if substantial numbers were added after Aug. 28. For the purpose of this article, it might be more appropriate to list approximate comparative numbers by the date he was reinstated, if this can somehow be determined from page histories, or ideally clarified by other more recent reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The numbers game* and other irrelevant drama for a fringe purveyor is exactly what should be avoided here (fringe being the only relevant bit for us). I was going to revert this for there wasn't any consensus but will let others have their say as well.

* Though as I also noted above the counter-letter which covers Ghent academics substantially is more important than any number of signatories. Gotitbro (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

None of the independent, reliable, secondary sources are invoking any aspect of WP:Fringe. They are simply stating a letter was signed, and the signatories objected to Cofnas being sanctioned for whistleblowing. Sources don't suggest signatories endorsed Cofnas' fringe views about race. Multiple sources have discussed both letters in-depth, without needing to compile cherry-picked lists of which signers have been accused of sexual harassment or were wrong about COVID-19 or gender or history, or whatever (and FWIW, 8 of the 950 signatories have FRS, FRSE, or FRSC after their name). Focus on the sources, and read them carefully. Our mention that a letter exists is not remotely the same as endorsing the letter, nor WP:PROFRINGE. Our own views of any of the signers matter zilch. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

There are issues even beyond the signatories, though that was particularly problematic when that 'academic freedom' letter was being solely inserted here initially (which was indeed WP:PROFRINGE). The current sentence may ameliorate some concerns but ultimately this is trivial including meandering about the number of signatories and why that has come to be about.

Sources don't suggest signatories endorsed Cofnas' fringe views about race Sure note that they are signing a letter for a "race realist" including The National particularly listing the Scottish ones. So yes RS are indeed scrutinizing the signatories of the initial open letter. Fringe concerns withstand. Gotitbro (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You keep saying Fringe applies, without mentioning what actual policies and guidelines would prohibit or discourage mentioning a letter in a Wikipedia article, be it WP:FRINGE or any other guideline. I am going on WP:NPOV, especially WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT. All of the pertinent sources in the article are independent from those signing the letters (aside from the supplemental Google Doc mentioned above). Signing a letter is not pseudoscience, nor a fringe theory, and when multiple independent secondary sources cover an aspect, then it becomes due for inclusion. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You keep saying Fringe applies, without mentioning what actual policies and guidelines would prohibit or discourage mentioning a letter in a Wikipedia article

Incorrect. Mentioned and quoted above in detail.

when multiple independent secondary sources cover an aspect, then it becomes due for inclusion

Nope, mere coverage isn't any criteria for inclusion. News media covers a lot of things, it is entirely upto editorial discretion and consensus (which for this there hasn't been any) to decide the dueness (WP:DUE) of what goes in and doesn't. Gotitbro (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

2024 is correct, 2014 is wrong

The blog post for which he got fired from Emmanuel is from 2024. The incorrect year 2014 was inserted in Special:Diff/1371633185 with a reference to this paywalled Times Higher Education source . I don't have access to the THE source, so I can't tell whether it actually said 2014, but it's obviously wrong. The blog post is from 2024 and can be found here . I corrected the year. @Slatersteven reverted my edit with the comment "if you canoit read the siurce, assume the person who ADDED IT HAS." But obviously, it doesn't matter whether the THE source says 2014 or not. It's simply wrong. For completeness, here are some secondary sources that correctly say 2024 (there are hundreds more):

• The Observer
• The Guardian
• BBC News

— Chrisahn (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The THE source isn't really paywalled, one just needs to create an account, which I just did. The source says "a blog post from 2014", but it also says "in 2024 following a blog post". The "2014" is incorrect, probably a typo. Silly. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

So then blog post was in 2014. Which is exaclty what we say: "In a 2014 blog post". People do get fired for things they said in the past, do you have any sources that say the blog was posted in 2024? Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'm done here. This is too stupid. Just read the bloody sources. You don't know what you're talking about. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Can someone else please explain to Slatersteven why 2014 is wrong? — Chrisahn (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Have either of you considered there may be references to two blog posts? This man is very open about his views. Maybe there's more than one post making these claims and different journos saw different posts? Simonm223 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

No, this is about one blog post, and it's from 2024. THE says "2014", but quotes the 2024 blog post. Just read the sources. It's very simple. It's pretty annoying that I have to explain these very basic facts. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible, but we would need RS saying they were two separate posts and not (as another example) the same one posted twice. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

There was no blog post in 2014. THE simply has a typo in that article. Jesus. Just look at the sources. It's bloody obvious. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you need to dial back the hostility and look at it from the other side of this. A source says 2014. That is, in fact, looking at the sources. You assert that this source did so in error and you point to a discrepancy with other sources. Source discrepancies can be lots of reasons.

1. A source is wrong.
2. Other sources are wrong.
3. Both are correct when dealing with limited information sets.

Regardless the difference between a 2-year old blog and a 12-year old blog isn't significant enough to throw WP:CIV to the wind. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

OK. I give up. If you want our article to say "2014", so be it. It's obviously wrong, and it will be fixed soon by someone who actually reads and understands the sources, but whatever. Bye for now. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas has a list of his "popular articles" ("popular" in the sense of not academic, I think) here , including his blog posts. The earliest entry is from 2016. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the stupidest discussion I've had in years. Can someone just look at the sources, please? Come on. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

[] " In one example, in a blog post from 2014 Cofnas says:", and read wp:civil Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

In one example It seems likely there were multiple posts. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, but we have one source saying the blog post was in 2014, one saying there was more than one (maybe, quote backing a 2024 blog post, please?), and others that only says he was sacked in 2024, and do not give the date of the post. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok so here's where small details matter. How many sources say "the" blog post compared to "a" blog post. Simonm223 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Observer says a substack, Guardian says a substack and a blogpost, BBC is vaguer still merely saying His role at a Cambridge college was terminated in 2024 after backlash to his view that, under a true meritocracy, black people would "disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment". Literally none of these sources imply, even in the slightest, that there was just one blog post or that only one blog post was involved in the decisions to suspend or terminate Cofnas. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

True, not none; even implies it was for any blog post in 2024. We do, however, have one RS saying (explicitly) it was in 2014. So maybe remove the date entirely, or say "in blog posts stating in 2014". Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The best way to follow the sources would be to say Cofnas was dismissed in 2024 following a blog post without dating the blog post or implying it was the only one. Is that agreeable to both of you? Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

If necessary. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The article still says "a 2014 blog post", and that's still wrong, and I still think it's silly not to fix this obvious mistake. But if you prefer it that way, so be it. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I thought I got all mentions to the date on the blog post. Will remove. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The blog post is from 2024. Hundreds of sources say so, including the primary source, i.e. the blog post itself. That's relevant information. There is no 2014 blog post. A single typo in a single source does not change that fact. Removing the well-documented year of the blog post because some people (including some Wikipedia editors) made mistakes is silly. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

My concern is why it matters when he wrote the blog. It matters when the blog developed outcry. That's clearly 2024. That the point in which whatever he scrawled mattered. I fully agree with you there. But the actual publication date seems somewhat irrelevant as the blog is not itself a citation in the article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's relevant when the blog post was published, and we should mention it. That's what we'd usually do. It's clear that the blog post was published in 2024, there was no 2014 post, and the THE article contains a typo. I see no reason to not restore these parts of the article to the state before the erroneous change of "2024" to "2014" in Special:Diff/1371633185. Without that, "Shortly after" in the next sentence isn't very meaningful. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Here are the facts that were available from the start of this discussion to anyone who bothered to read the sources and think about them for a moment:

• There is a 2024 Cofnas blog post that contains the quote "In a meritocracy ... outside of sports and entertainment" (two sentences).
• There is a large number of reliable secondary sources about the blog post, they all say 2024, and they always contain this quote, or large parts of it. (See my first comment, many more can easily be found.)
• There is a single source (THE) that says "2014" but then cites exactly the same quote (both sentences) as the other sources, and a bit further down says "2024".
• There is no other evidence of a 2014 Cofnas blog post.

Given these facts, it's obvious that "2014" in the THE source is a typo. To think otherwise and believe that maybe there also was a 2014 blog post, one would have to assume that

1. Cofnas wrote exactly the same two sentences in a blog post in 2014
2. Nobody noticed that blog post for ten years
3. Cofnas published another blog post in 2024 containing exactly these two sentences
4. Although nobody can find the 2014 blog post anymore, THE is the only source that knows about it

That's extremely unlikely, and believing it is irrational. I never said that the people who thought so were stupid, but either they didn't read the sources properly or they didn't think about the issue properly. I called such behaviour "stupid". "Lazy" would probably have been nicer. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you one last time to stop with the personal attacks and WP:FOC. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

off-topic chit-chat

@Chrisahn but either they didn't read the sources properly or ... Curious that you want to go against what the source says in this particular case, but choose to use the most stringent and restrictive reading of sources when it suits you in other related discussions, etc.

Anyway, if you think the Times Higher Education article needs to be corrected then I'd recommend contacting the publication about that. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

1a. When one source makes an obvious mistake, it's perfectly normal to go with the 99% of sources that don't make that mistake. It would be silly to trust that one source against the evidence of all the other sources.

1b. When hundreds of sources use variations of "self-described race realist" and zero sources say "is a proponent of scientific racism"... you get the point.

2. I already did. See Special:Diff/1373175250.

— Chrisahn (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

In both cases, I try to read, understand and cite sources very precisely and carefully. You should try it. It's a bit of work, but it makes Wikipedia better. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand and think that's generally a good thing, as long as we aren't being pedantic about it. Reasonable people can disagree about where the line is. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but in the case of WP:BLP, we should err on the side of pedantry and strictly follow the sources, without any WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

And of course fixing an obvious mistake on Wikipedia, e.g. when an article says "2014" instead of "2024", is not pedantry. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

By the way, is someone going to tell that TA to "focus on content, not on behaviour"? I guess not... :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have criticisms of a user's action, take it to their talk page or wp:ani, do not discuss it here per WP:NPA. Comment on content, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• 2014 does appear to be an outlying typo in the THE article, as no other sources seem to agree with it. It's pretty clear Cofnas' February 2024 blog post entitled "A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution" is the source of the quotes about meritocracy and Black scholars in Harvard that got him in trouble, as corroborated by The Times, Varsity, The Observer, Het Laatste Nieuws, etc., which all described the blog post as in "2024" and/or "February". When one otherwise reliable source has a date not found in any other source and, we can simply use a different source that reflects the predominant value. THE is not the only source, nor is any source immune from the possibility of errors. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Also, for future reference, WP:RSBREAKING and the essay Wikipedia:When sources are wrong have good advice. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Head of Eugenics at Harvard

The New Yorker magazine quotes Cofnas as saying,

"what happened if you don’t give Cofnas a job. ... After the revolution, I'll be the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard."

Almost the entire article in NYM separates the first half of the above quote from the second. They have no connection to each other except in the mind of the person writing this.

But more pertinently, Cofnas *did not* say what he is quoted to have said in the NYM article on the Rob Montz podcast. I have not found the source for the quote. Watch the podcast and find out for yourself. Look at timestamp 58:00.

Please remove or edit passage and be aware the NYM is not immune from spreading falsehood. ~2026-45366-97 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah right:

Cofnas: It's that there was a story. There was a basis for a news story that would capture people's attention. But you know there are so many cases of people who are just like Arday but you know there isn't that kind of that kind of story potential. The lesson is this what's happened if you don't give Cofnas a job right.
Montz: Yeah, you got your own ways to retaliate. What are you going to do you think? You are going to finish your PhD. You've already finished it.
Cofnas: Yeah I already finished it a long time ago.
Montz: So what are you going to do.
Cofnas: Well, I have the job currently and I'm still waiting for the revolution to happen and then I'll get another job. After the revolution, I'll be the uh you know the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1631&v=9ZDTBqb8Juo (26:00) Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems I was looking at a different, follow-up, Montz-Cofnas podcast. And I withdraw what I said about NYM. ~2026-45366-97 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Video: Cofnas reacts to the first sentences of this article

On his video podcast published yesterday, Glenn Loury interviews Nathan Cofnas. Loury begins by reading the first sentences of this article, paraphrasing slightly: "'Nathan Cofnas, an American postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University in Belgium, uh, known for controversies surrounding his advocacy of scientific racism. Earned a doctorate at Oxford in 2020, uh, and, uh, thereafter, uh, research grant...' I'm trying to read from your Wikipedia page here, Nathan ..." Cofnas, who starts to smile at "scientific racism", replies: "That would not be my chosen biography, but, uh, I'm hoping that somebody will correct ..." Loury interrupts him and starts the interview. – Not really important, and of course we don't care whether people like what we write about them, just an interesting tidbit. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Another interesting quote from Cofnas in that interview: "on average, conservatives are stupider than liberals for genetic reasons". — Chrisahn (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

See wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)