Talk:Jason Arday

"Race realist"

The article currently describes Cofnas as a postdoctoral researcher in philosophy at Ghent University and self-described "race realist". I edited the latter portion of the text to advocate for scientific racism, but was reverted (accidentally, but they've said they stand by it), so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. @Hippo43: if you'd like to weigh in.

"Race realism" redirects to scientific racism already, because as the article explains, proponents of the belief prefer that term. However, the typical word for the belief, as shown by the chosen title for that article, is "scientific racism" (or sometimes "race science", another redirect to "scientific racism"). While a number of sources use Cofnas' "self-described 'race realist'" language (though only ever in WP:SCAREQUOTEs, which we also avoid), there are other sources that call a spade a spade:

• "Concerns have been raised about Cofnas due to his association with controversial "race science", also known as the widely-discredited scientific racism." Brussels Times
• "'It is an open secret that [the tech right] is aware of race differences. Elon Musk frequently promotes HBD (human-biodiversity) X accounts,' writes Nathan Cofnas, a Cambridge philosopher who was sanctioned by his college for his openly racist beliefs last year. 'Among young (most millennial, virtually all zoomer) intellectuals on the right, race realism isn’t controversial.' Scientific racism is hardly a new thing, long predating even the infamous eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century." Vox
• "Cofnas is known for his work suggesting that Black people were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people", New York Times

Much how Wikipedia doesn't use the term "pro-life" for the anti-abortion movement, "pro-choice" for the abortion rights movement, "gender critical" for trans-exclusionary radical feminism, and so on, we should not be using "race realism" here. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. "Race realist" is not used in Wikivoice. As you yourself stated, it says "self-described 'race realist'". The quotation marks matter a lot. I don't see what is gained by using "advocate of scientific racism" (or a similar construct), but I do see that something is lost by doing so: It adds a layer and quality that Cofnas describes himself this way, especially because beyond race as such that particular aspect (the aspect of Cofnas self-describing as a 'race realist') is inherently part of the story, via its prelude and otherwise. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

What is gained is using the common term for his beliefs, rather than relying on our readers to recognize the somewhat fringe euphemism. (See MOS:EUPHEMISM: Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms.). It is not Wikipedia's job to help Cofnas with his branding, nor do I see how it's relevant to this article as your last sentence (I think?) is saying. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas' self-description as a 'race realist', his publications to that effect and him standing by them are why he was fired from Cambridge. It isn't far fetched to assume that he was resentful and wanted to pay back the favor. He then found a black plagiarist with a flowery imagination at Cambridge. The aspect that Cofnas continuously self-describes as such is inherent to the whole story and should be preserved. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Support all of what GW has said here in this thread. It actually does our readers a disservice to utilize or give any credibility to misleading euphemisms (e.g., "race realism") that only act to paper over and hide/obscure from view the much more commonly used and preferred scientific racism concept and framing. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"self described "race realist"" seems to be common in reliable sources. I would stick with it unless there's clearly a more common description used in good sources. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"Pro-choice", "pro-life", etc. are also extremely common in reliable sources, but we still use the more neutral term per MOS:EUPH. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"self described "race realist"" is common in sources specifically discussing this subject. This article is not a biography of Cofnas. If RSs have chosen to use this description, including the phrase "self-described", and using quotation marks, we lose some of that meaning if we change it. "Scientific racism" is also not a neutral term. // Hippo43 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It's far more neutral a term than "race-realist" which is pretty much only used by advocates of the belief, hence its being scare quoted in sources. ToeSchmoker (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

No. It's being put in quotation marks because it is, literally, a quote. Those are not colloquial scare quotes. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Why else do you think the various sources are (scare)quoting the term rather than just saying Race Realist sans any extra punctuation marks? ToeSchmoker (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

We seem to have our wires crossed. Allow me the use of an example: "Einstein coined the term 'spooky action at a distance' to describe certain quantum-mechanical phenomena." The sentence you just read does not contain scare quotes. It contains a literal quote. That, those precise words – spooky action at a distance – were what he coined. Likewise, the papers are literally quoting Cofnas, whether that be two words or two paragraphs. If you think I am wrong on that, please explain why. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

But we do not say that Einstein studied "spooky action at a distance", we say he studied quantum mechanics. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:01, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

That's wrong. We do in fact say:

• Einstein later disparaged quantum mechanics for seemingly exhibiting "spukhafte Fernwirkung",[28] or "spooky action at a distance", meaning the acquisition of a value of a property at one location resulting from a measurement at a distant location.
• We even use the term with quotation marks as a section heading!

We recycle those precise words, because they matter, and we put them in quotation marks, because they are literally a quote. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

And the article about Cofnas also says he describes himself as a "race realist", because that kind of detail is appropriate for a full-length article about the subject. But when briefly referring to Einstein on adjacent topics (as we are briefly referring to Cofnas here), we absolutely do not refer to him as studying "spooky action at a distance", which is the comparable scenario. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It has inherent relevance to the subject, as I have outline above. Why do you consistently not reply to that? In legal equality ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your response above. We agree that Cofnas' outspoken advocacy for scientific racism is germane to the article; I think that's more than well established in the sources. But the fact that he describes himself as a "race realist" is not itself relevant; as I say, it just obscures what he's advocating. As for It isn't far fetched to assume that he was resentful and wanted to pay back the favor. He then found a black plagiarist with a flowery imagination at Cambridge, that's WP:OR. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

It was the American white supremacist [[Jared Taylor]] who popularised the phrase in the 1990s. It's not neutral at all. Keshetsven (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct. And Taylor's Wikipedia article first says that he has been described as a white nationalist, white supremacist, and racist, then it goes on to talk about how he self-identifies as a "racialist who believes in race-realism" and a "white advocate", and then (more importantly) goes on to state in Wikivoice that Taylor is a proponent of scientific racism and voluntary racial segregation ... and blah blah blah.

I don't see why we can't do the same here on this article, and use Wikivoice to correctly state that Cofnas is a proponent of scientific racism, etc. There is no ambiguity here. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

And the term alt right was coined by Richard B. Spencer, not to mention the history of terms like eugenics, dysgenic, racial hygiene, race suicide and what-have-you, all of which have articles titled after that term, and all of which are referenced using that term. Are we to stop calling the alt-right alt-right now? The reliable sources use that term over and over, and it has significance that Cofnas "self-describes as a 'race realist'" (as I've outline above). Who coined the term is utterly irrelevant. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

The term "race realist" is not WP:NPOV and its usage violates MOS:EUPH. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not used in Wikivoice, ergo WP:NPOV and MOS:EUPH are utterly irrelevant. It's a quote. ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"Alt-right" was later widely adopted by reliable sources for that group, which is why we use it. You will note that the RS don't use "race realist" outside of quotes, because the view that some races are scientifically superior to others is not "realism", it's pseudoscience. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

By that logic, calling it scientific racism without quotation marks is even worse, because that would imply that it is, in fact, scientific. By your own logic, you would need to call it pseudoscientific racism ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I guess I'd be open to a discussion about that at Talk:Scientific racism, but this is the consensus name we have now. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It's still not in Wikivoice, still a quote, and that quote still has meaning inherently relevant to the story. It's the "spooky action at a distance" of this topic (see above for what I mean by that). ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

"Scientific racism" is the WP:NPOV term for "race realism". If a flat earther described themselves as a "disc earth realist", we would describe them as a flat earther, not a "self-described 'disc earth realist'". In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:53, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Wrong. We would do so, if that had inherent relevance to the story and was widely reported by RS. Such is the case here: It matters that Cofnas is self-describing as such, as I've outlined at length in a previous answer to this segment. In legal egalitarianism, ~2026-44611-05 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

It matters that Cofnas is self-describing as such ... It doesn't really matter. Saying in Wikivoice that he is a "proponent/advocate of scientific racism" explains the situation well, and avoids the problematic euphemism. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody reads articles like this. Virtually no one. Terminally online takes. Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones (At the Tobes of Hades) 02:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

thought about addressing this when I added the link (and again when adding some context about Cofnas), but I think especially now that we have a stand-alone article, we can provide the succinct explanation here and ensure the "self-described" part is in the main bio. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

This seems sensible. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

agreed. The current form uses Cofnas' own term and even a quote from him, but does not use the standard Wikipedia descriptive term for his views. Elcalebo (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

still beating that "weasel word" drum.... okay.... wrird. ~2026-46569-97 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that this topic should be closed. It has 3x more replies than the next 5 most discussed topics on this page, and it's literally about two words that don't even describe the person of interest.

Keeping it real this entire talk has just become a dog whistle for race realists, even if that wasn't the original intent.

I don't know how to make a poll but if I did I'd vote to have this thing closed. It's distracting for people who want to work on the article. SkylordreignKLA (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Can someone (besides me) evaluate if there's consensus here or if we need an RfC? Thanks. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Given was reverted, I've opened an RfC below. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hippo43 was already very recently warned about edit warring. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Description of Nathan Cofnas' views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After reading this discussion, I find consensus for Option B. There is clear consensus against Option A, which garnered only a small amount of support. Those in support mainly argued that because the "race realist" phrase would be attributed to Cofnas, it would not be in wikivoice and would therefore be acceptable. I felt that this argument mostly fell apart throughout the discussion, with several editors noting that MOS:EUPHEMISM advises against using euphamistic framing when more percise terms exist and that presenting Cofnas' words uncritically functionally concedes ground to the clearly WP:FRINGE theory of scientific racism. Other arguments presented in defense of Option A were that the self-description is helpful context or that "scientific racism" implies a degree of legitimacy to the view, but I did not find the former persuasive and the latter is irrelevant as scientific racism is the more common, accepted term (and what "race realist" actually redirects to). There was also a contingent of editors arguing that neither option was acceptable, with those arguments mostly either arguing that Cofnas only played a minor role in the scandal or that his views should be described more generally. The former seems irrelevant because Cofnas did play a role and reliable sources consistently point to his views on race as related. For the latter, other editors in the discussion pointed out that any general or more in-depth description of Cofnas' views would simply be a roundabout way of describing "scientific racism."

Option B had both raw numeric support in the discussion and consistently higher quality of argumentation than the alternatives. Editors pointed to the fact that "scientific racism" is both the established term for this belief system and the title of the Wikipedia article on the subject, that reliable sources either describe Cofnas as believing it or explicitly connect Cofnas' work to it, and that sources that used the "race realist" term did so only to report his self-description, which there was consensus against including. Some editors argued against this by saying that Option B would conflict with MOS:LABEL by not providing attribution for a value-laden label, but supporters of Option B were able to show that the label was not contentious and was rather an accurate description of Cofnas' views. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

---

How should this article describe Cofnas' views on race in the Public accusations section?

1. "Cofnas, a self-described 'race realist', ..."
2. "Cofnas, a proponent of scientific racism, ..."

In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:31, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• Option B. "Race realism" redirects to scientific racism already, because as that article explains, "race realism" is the euphemism preferred by proponents of the belief. However, the typical and NPOV word for the belief, as shown by the chosen title for that article, is "scientific racism" (or sometimes "race science", another redirect to "scientific racism"). While a number of sources use Cofnas' "self-described 'race realist'" language (though only ever in WP:SCAREQUOTEs, which we also avoid), there are other sources that call a spade a spade:
  • "Concerns have been raised about Cofnas due to his association with controversial "race science", also known as the widely-discredited scientific racism." Brussels Times
  • "'It is an open secret that [the tech right] is aware of race differences. Elon Musk frequently promotes HBD (human-biodiversity) X accounts,' writes Nathan Cofnas, a Cambridge philosopher who was sanctioned by his college for his openly racist beliefs last year. 'Among young (most millennial, virtually all zoomer) intellectuals on the right, race realism isn’t controversial.' Scientific racism is hardly a new thing, long predating even the infamous eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century." Vox
  • "Cofnas is known for his work suggesting that Black people were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people", New York Times
  Much how Wikipedia doesn't use the term "pro-life" for the anti-abortion movement or "pro-choice" for the abortion rights movement, we should not be using "race realism" here. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare You !voted first and a lot of people are referencing your comment (to agree with it) so I wanted to ask if/how you respond to the "Neither" comments below. Specifically, would you support a sentence containing a description of his views synthesised from the sources that commented on them (in the context of the Arday story) rather than applying a label to his views? I understand and agree with your argument inasmuch as it's a rejection of Option A, but I think Option B should be rejected too per MOS:RACIST. I'm imagining a sentence similar to the one you quoted from NYT above (and perhaps cited to it) to describe his views. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I guess it would depend on the specific text, but I still have a preference for B. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:31, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand how that complies with the MOS but whatever. As a specific text (somewhat arbitrarily but something you can respond to), "Cofnas, who is known for promoting the belief that white people are genetically predisposed to higher intelligence than black people ..." Samuelshraga (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Option B - "Scientific racism" is the much more straightforward and NPOV terminology; we should also avoid using misleading euphemisms per the manual of style recommendations: Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. How Cofnas "self-identifies" can be thoroughly explained in detail on his own BLP article page. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• B per points laid out in proposal and my own comments in earlier discussion. ToeSchmoker (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Option B, obviously. We don't pussyfoot around clear, sourced racism descriptions to make racism more palatable to readers who are less familiar with the byzantine vagaries of the racists. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 20:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:RACIST says that we do, in fact, pussyfoot around clear, sourced racism descriptions and that we don't make such descriptions in our own voice. That doesn't mean we should be euphemistic or refrain from describing his views. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  How to style an article shouldn't overule using the description of reliable sources per NPOv and V. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Also describing a fringe position such as scientific racism in the subjects own words without balancing is against guidance on such views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you, inasmuch as what you've written is a very good argument against Option A. Using Option A is an WP:NPOV problem, which - in this case and pretty much always - is the controlling policy. Option B is an MOS problem which is a guideline. So if we're forced to choose between option A and option B, we should choose the latter.

  However it's clearly a false dichotomy. Ignoring the MOS in favour of more central policies is only required if you limit your options to these two-word labels. Instead of labelling his views, we could describe them. This is in fact what plenty of the RS cited in this RfC have done. E.g. of the RfC nominator's three cited sources, one is written in reference to Jason Arday (the New York Times) and it does cover his views, but not by using a contentious label (see quoted passage in that comment).[] In this BBC article that covers Cofnas in relation to Arday, it says Nathan Cofnas ... who argues genes play a "non-trivial role" in intelligence differences between racial groups. Let's follow the sources in describing his views, and then we can follow NPOV, V, and the MOS. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV and BLP are clear that labels widely used by reliable sources are fine, if a racist is described as a racist then editors shouldn't insert their own bias by going against those sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the evidence that this is a label widely used by reliable sources to describe Cofnas? I've seen no one present that evidence so far. Aapjes (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  MOS:LABEL says:are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Are you suggesting that the part after the comma is always overridden by WP:NPOV? Are you going to suggest making that change to the guideline? Samuelshraga (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy:

  While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

  Food for thought. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  If you think I'm ignoring the spirit of the guideline, you can make that case. I think I'm arguing we should adhere both to its spirit and its letter.

  If you want to ignore the guideline, you should be able to explain why. Wikipedia labelling people as racists in its own voice is exactly the kind of thing that MOS:LABEL is there to avoid - the spirit of the guideline. One can remain true to NPOV by describing Cofnas' views in the way sources do, which will give most informed readers more than enough context to know that he has views about race that most people would consider to be racist. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Samuelshraga, upon reading the conversation that you are engaged in here, I feel like my take on NPOV and BLP is quite rusty and maybe I need to review these. I am not familiar with MOS:LABEL but I get the gist from this discussion. Perhaps you have already considered the following, but, Wikipedia is in the business of summarizing sources. Perhaps, terminology such as option B can be seen as a the best summation of what the sources have to say. And more than a few times, I have encountered descriptions of people on Wikipedia that I find personally jarring.

  But then I have to agree, that jarring description is what sources say. Also, over time I can see the benefits of Wikipedia not holding back when the RS involved calls for it. Although I like this quote that you provided -- "Nathan Cofnas ... who argues genes play a "non-trivial role" in intelligence differences between racial groups," -- I begin to see the difference between calling a spade a spade (option B) and leaning into euphuisms, which is close to what this quoted material does. It seems to present an accurate picture of Cofnas' view from a certain point of view - but maybe it doesn't. All of the above is IMHO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  If there is the belief that we absolutely cannot summarize this man's fringe views without running afoul of MOS:LABEL then we should just quote him. I'll be the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard. After all, I suppose saying he advocates for scientific racism might obscure that he also openly advocates for eugenics. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Simon223, I couldn't help chuckling at your response. Well said, and I can clearly see your point. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  He said that as a joke. Maybe in bad taste, but obviously not a serious prediction. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Samuelshraga, no one is intending to use the word "racist" regarding this discussion. So, what you are saying is somewhat inaccurate. MOS:LABEL does not hold weight in light of NPOV, BLP, and V. Also, MOS:LABEL as guidance does not say labels should not be used. It says attribution might be needed. Also, implying that this is a case of labeling is probably not accurate. It is a description, based on a summary of the RS. Saying this is labeling seems to be a misrepresentation. And that misrepresentation might be the biggest flaw in your argument.---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  The MOS isn't a list of words that have special rules (or you could get around exactly like this by using slight variations), it is a guideline about the use of Value-laden labels. The contrary position, that any variation on the explicitly incomplete list of examples at MOS:LABEL means it doesn't apply, seems insanely lawyerly - much like the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY quote that was posted in this sub-thread. "Racist" and "proponent of racism" are obviously synonymous.

  "Proponent of racism" (with any adjective thrown in before racism) is clearly value-laden way of describing a person. The MOS also doesn't say attribution "might be needed" with these labels, it says use in-text attribution. I happen to think in this instance a description of his views would be better than an attributed label, but that's not even the discussion that's being had - what's proposed here is a wiki-voice label.

  So I agree MOS:LABEL doesn't hold weight in light of NPOV, BLP or V (what's the V issue here?), but when there's no conflict we should obviously follow all the policies and guidelines, and I've suggested a way to do that. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  The in-text attribution for him advocating for "race science" is literally WP:ABOUTSELF Like what we have here is a man who has said "I am a racist" and we are hesitating to say "he calls himself a racist" because it might imply we are calling him racist. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ABOUTSELF, if you look, concerns using self-published or otherwise questionable sources as sources about those sources themselves. It is not relevant here. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is, in fact, us using public statements that Cofnas has made about himself to source that he has advocated for these views. If your argument is that he said it in a non-self-published venue that still doesn't address that Cofnas having said these things somewhat makes the MOS:LABEL complaint irrelevant. We are saying he advocated for views that he publicly advocated for and said he supported so much he wanted to make a career of them. So let's avoid tedious wikilawyering and focus on the meat of the issue. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  'If your argument is that he said it in a non-self-published venue' etc I made no such argument. I merely pointed out that you had cited a policy related to self-published sources which was not relevant. I believed this to be a helpful clarification. It is interesting that people are happy to throw around inline hyperlinks to policies left, right and centre, but it becomes 'wikilawyering' when someone points out when these do not apply to the issue at hand. I nevertheless wish you the best with your efforts to improve this article, and I hope you have a nice day. Best wishes. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any substantive objection to the statement that MOS:LABEL should not be used to keep out of an article that a person advocated for views that they have publicly advocated for and associated themselves with such that they want to make it into a career? Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Like what we have here is a man who has said "I am a racist" Do you have any sources for that? Because according to the WSJ, he denies being a racist. Unfortunately the relevant text is behind a paywall, but there are ways around that. The relevant quote from the article is "Cofnas denied that he is racist" Aapjes (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  The relevant quote is I'll be the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard. Which is a thing he said. In public. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Simonm223 could you provide a source for that quote? Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  There are actually several. Here's one. Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  And I know not everybody likes that source so here's the New Yorker Simonm223 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've read the New Yorker article you've provided. In the article it says: He added, jokingly, “After the revolution, I’ll be the head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard.” You appear to have misrepresented this source by presenting this statement as earnest and not a joke. In addition, you've made contentious statements based on your original analysis not in line with the source. WP:BLP applies to talk pages and per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:... 2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source

  Therefore, please remove your statements. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wow. Yep that quote was totally taken out of context and the resulting commentary is a BLP quagmire, I don't know whether it's defamatory but it's definitely not BLP-compliant. I'm removing (anyone can remove BLP violations). Samuelshraga (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Well content has been removed and unremoved, I'll just leave it as that when the reliable source for a quote presents it as a joke, it should be obvious to anyone that we should not be interpreting it as a bona fide statement of intent, and that doing so is, as pointed out above, a stark BLP violation. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Neither One solution is not to describe or label him at all, as you have the Guardian's hint and his damning quote. So, replace 'The Guardian later suggested that reception of the allegations was impacted by Cofnas's stated views on race.[6] Cofnas, a self-described "race realist", had previously suggested that, in a meritocracy, "Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment", a statement that had led to him being fired from Emmanuel College, Cambridge, in 2024.[6][8]' with e.g. or similar 'The Guardian later suggested that reception of the allegations was impacted by Cofnas's stated views on race.[6] Cofnas had previously suggested that, in a meritocracy, "Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment", a statement that had led to him being fired from Emmanuel College, Cambridge, in 2024.[6][8]. Jontel (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  One solution is not to describe or label him at all ... What is the purpose of that when we can be clear and direct? You are actually proposing here that we not even link to the scientific racism article at all, which seems detrimental and disallows readers from learning more about the topic. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Cofnas is mentioned in this article because he accused Arday of plagiarism, so the connection is with Cofnas. If readers are interested in Cofnas' views and motivations in relation to Arday or otherwise, they would go to the linked article about him. They can pursue it further from there if they wish. Including links which send people elsewhere is a diversion from the connection with this article, which is Cofnas. Jontel (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Disagree. I think it's necessary to at least link to the scientific racism page. It isn't a distraction from this article at all; it's directly connected to what catalysed the public furore about Arday's potential plagiarism in the first place. Whynotlol2 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes exactly. Whynotlol2 is correct here on these points.

  EDIT: In fact, see this article, which was linked below by another editor. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  If there is a standalone sentence on scientific racism in the Arday article with a RS linking it to the Arday affair, then it is perfectly proper to link it to the scientific racism page. It should be easy to add such a sentence if it is 'directly connected'. Adding a link to an adjective describing Cofnas is a roundabout way of doing it and a bit of a cheat. Jontel (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Articles that discuss Cofnas, his well-documented work and views on race, and his direct intervention related to Arday isn't enough? I don't get it. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  This current wording in the Wikipedia article makes that connection:

  Cofnas said he had run Arday's PhD thesis through plagiarism detection software and discovered that "many passages are lifted with minimal editing, sometimes retaining copy-editing mistakes from the original source".[6] The Guardian later suggested that reception of the allegations was affected by Cofnas's views on race.[6]

  Thoughts? ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that cherry picking a belief by Cofnas without any obvious relation to Arday is "clear and direct". Keep in mind that this article is not about Cofnas, so anything about Cofnas in this article should reflect on his relation to Arday. There is no claim in the accusatory article that Arday should not have been an academic due to his race, but it is argued that he should not have been due to his plagiarism. In fact, Cofnas makes the argument that Cambridge could have preferentially hired a black professor that he deems to be capable of the work. Aapjes (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that cherry picking a belief by Cofnas without any obvious relation to Arday ... One doesn't need to "cherry pick" when scientific racism appears to be one of his core beliefs (and is a huge part of his "research" work). And yes, it truly is puzzling how there is no "obvious relation to Arday" there, ha. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  As I've already explained elsewhere, the article on scientific racism is nonsensical as anyone who believes that skin color is largely genetic and makes some genetic groups superior at living closer to the equator (less skin cancer) and other groups superior at living relatively far away from the equator (less vitamin D deficiency), would be a scientific racist according the the supplied definition. That would mean that the article on human skin color on Wikipedia is scientifically racist.

  Since the definition of scientific racism in the article is not actually consistently followed by Wikipedia itself, the application is then clearly a political decision, not an objective one. I believe that WP:NPOV requires using neutral terminology, not terminology that is used based on political preferences/taboos.

  Furthermore, the belief that genetics causes IQ differences at the group level can result in very different conclusions based on other beliefs that the person has. For example, it can lead to either calls to discriminate against the group that is allegedly less intelligent on average, but also in calls to discriminate in their favor. So your allegation that it is obvious that 'scientific racism' led to his decision to out Arday, is to me just a sign that you fail to appreciate the diversity of thought that can exist in people that may seem to have similar beliefs from your political position. The concept of the 'narcissism of small differences' is also based on the understanding that people see more nuance in views that are similar to their own.

  I think that WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia stay away from using lazy stereotyping to explain people's behaviors.

  Anyway, Cofnas has explained his beliefs and one could make an actually good summary that would accurately describe his reasons why he did what he did, instead of appealing to lazy stereotyping. However, I don't see why that would be WP:DUE, given that this article is about Arday, and that the only reason why Cofnas plays a central role is because a journalist declined to publish due to legal threats and because an emeritus-professor who reported the issue to Cambridge was not taken seriously. So if history had gone a little differently, Cofnas would not have been in the picture at all. So unless you want to argue that the journalist and the emeritus-professor are scientific racists, then it seems rather silly to put any real importance on Cofnas' beliefs (for this article). Aapjes (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Neither I support User:Jontel's suggestion above that we avoid labels and simply briefly describe his perspective on race. Repeating his own damning words is both NPOV and avoids potentially controversial synthetic judgements about how precisely he should be described. If readers want to find out how he 'self-describes', they can open the link and read his page. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Edit: My position remains neither, but I am also additionally persuaded on several points: 1. There do not appear to be any sources at all which explicitly describe the man as a 'proponent of scientific racism', and so this appears to be a synthetic judgement based on the accumulated sources; 2. I also believe therefore, per User:Samuelshraga's reasoning, that option B, that is, describing him as a 'proponent of xyz racism', is inconsistent with MOS:LABEL, which is only a style guide, but even so; 3. Option A remains not wholly satisfactory for the various reasons already elaborated here. It is therefore best, as I originally suggested, to contextualise his intervention with references to his concrete views. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• A - the race realist Wiki page redirects to scientific racism, so it's not as though it's acting as a euphemism, and I would argue that Cofnas' self-definition as a 'race realist' is important framing for his actions as it adds specific context and clearly illustrates that this is a label he himself embraces, regardless of its affiliations with scientific racism, rather than it being an externally-imposed label. It's also a direct quote from Cofnas with a cited source to back that up, so is in line with WP:NPOV as it's not wikivoice. Whynotlol2 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  It is acting as a euphemism; you are expecting that every reader will click the link, which is discouraged (Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them (or, at least, to hover their mouse pointer on those links to get page previews in the form of navigation popups) before understanding where they lead.) In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  See the second half of my comment. Whynotlol2 (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  "so it's not as though it's acting as a euphemism"

  Incorrect "wikt:race realist" was specifically created as a euphemism (note the "realist" bit there) by scientific racists after the biological basis of race (human categorization) had been thoroughly discredited. Any usage as such is acting to couch the fact that it is fringe or pseudo/unscientific. Gotitbro (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  The article says Cofnas self describes as a 'race realist' and the text therein links to the page on scientific racism. It is not acting as a euphemism if the phrase links directly to that page. You don't need to explain the history of the term to me, as that's completely irrelevant to my point. Please respond only to points I've actually made. Whynotlol2 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  "It is not acting as a euphemism if the phrase links directly to that page."

  Pipelinking (rather easteregging) a euphemism created by race scientists does exactly that. So no. Either the term is explained in text directly, i.e. it being a euphemism for scientific racism, or we shouldn't use it at all. Gotitbro (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please see the rest of my response. I'm not typing the same thing out multiple times. Whynotlol2 (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  "was specifically created as a euphemism" – That's a bold and unsourced claim. Yes, "race realism" is often used as a euphemism for "scientific racism", but it's also often used in a neutral sense. It's complicated. See Talk:Scientific racism#"Race realism" is not always a euphemism for "scientific racism". — Chrisahn (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

• Neither - The page already describes that Cofnas left Cambridge after uproar over a statement regarding the capabilities of black people. This ought to be more than enough to make it clear that Cofnas is not a fully neutral party. However, that doesn't mean that we actually know his real motive. His accusatory article focused specifically on Arday, not on black scholars at Cambridge in general, and Cofnas has more beliefs than just one. Furthermore, motive is a very poor way to judge the validity of accusations, as a bad motive does not mean that an accusation has to be wrong and a good motive does not mean that it is right. The newsletter by Cofnas contains extensive evidence for his claims. The quality of that evidence is the best way to judge whether Cofnas' accusation has merit. So I would suggest to minimize the text about the beliefs of Cofnas, who is after all not the topic of this article, but focus on what WP:RS say about the merit of the evidence in his accusatory article. Aapjes (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Although I'm a fellow "Neither", I disagree with you here. The RS I saw who covered this story and mentioned Cofnas discussed his beliefs on this issue specifically (e.g. the NYT piece quoted above, though I've seen others). That's the reason to include something about his beliefs - we should be following RS. Whether that lends or detracts credence from the plagiarism and other accusations is immaterial and not something for us to consider here. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, I'm a neither on the formulations proposed in the RfC, but I do think we should include material describing his beliefs. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  The NYT article does exactly what I suggest, which is to only quote the words by Cofnas that caused him to leave Cambridge. They don't editorialize by using either the term scientific racism or the term race realism. The article on Wikipedia already quotes the words written by Cofnas. My suggestion is to not go beyond that and not editorialize, which goes against WP:NPOV.

  So as far as I can see, the reasons you give why you disagree with me, should actually cause you to agree with me. I get the impression that you are confused about what is in the Wikipedia article right now (already a brief description of Cofnas' beliefs) as well as being confused about what the NYT article actually contains (no claim that Cofnas believes either in scientific racism or race realism).

  Finally, if you do want to expand on the beliefs of Cofnas, then I think that using biased language that will cause many people to draw wrong conclusions is the worst way to do it. In that case, I think we should actually summarize his views. However, I would argue that this does not belong on this page unless there is a clear link to Arday. Aapjes (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  ... unless there is a clear link to Arday. Hmm yes, one wonders what that clear link might be. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've understood you as arguing that we shouldn't include (in this article) material describing Cofnas' beliefs about race and intelligence. If I got that wrong I'm sorry. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• B > A. It's well-sourced and is the only reason his identity is relevant, so it should be highlighted. That said, while I prefer B for being a bit less euphemistic, the two have similar meanings and are both present in the sources, so either would work as long as we include at least one. I don't think we can omit his racial views entirely, though, given the level of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• B is the better option but there is a more important topic to include. That Cofnas was suspended from Gheng University for his participating in the accusation of Arday.
  This is included in "Reactions" but it is not in the direct text to describe Cofnas as "suspended", and I think it is important to include so as to contextualize his views on race science. ~2026-45929-73 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Option B It is every decade or so that race scientists come up with neologisms and euphemisms (wikt:race realists was an early one, wikt:human biodiversity is a new one) for their "scientific" racism. We shouldn't be giving any space to their preferred euphemistic nonsense. Gotitbro (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Option A - "race realist". If you really want to describe Cofnas as a bad guy, better use his own words. Indeed, the "realism" about the concept of "race" would simply have been that someone's color of skin gives no clue about the ability of the said person to occupy some "high-profile position". Example: what could have been the color of skin of the Cambridge's people who have been so inefficient in selecting the poster person of their PR campaign ? On the contrary, using the wording "scientific racism" is acting as if something could be scientific in the pretense of dividing the human beings into races. Moreover, "Cofnas is a bad guy" is not a proof of "Arday is not a cheater". Pldx1 (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

If you really want to describe Cofnas as a bad guy, better use his own words. ... Moreover, "Cofnas is a bad guy" is not a proof of "Arday is not a cheater". But that's irrelevant as this is not what's happening here.

Calling a spade a spade is warranted, and like it or not, "scientific racism" is the widely accepted WP:NPOV terminology, even though (as someone in the above discussion mentioned) pseudoscientific racism might be more appropriate. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the characterization of Arday or Cofnas (and we can hold off on the polemics here). This is about WP:FRINGE and how we describe it, race science or scientific racism is not science and Wikipedia should not be using nonsensical terms conjured up by those very pseudocientists to provide them cover. We don't couch other fringe nonsense under euphemisms (such as 'climate realists' or whatever [not surprisngly Cofnas is sympathetic to climate change denial as well]). This is no exception. Gotitbro (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

(Redacted) ~2026-46569-97 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Option A I think the most important thing is to make is clear this is a self-description, and I'm willing to put up with whatever euphemisms get us there. I want it to be clear that is not a situation where the subject evades and ducks any accusations, but reliable sources apply it anyway, but rather an uncontroversial self assessment. Deckocard21 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly my feeling about it. I think it's important for framing events accurately to note that it's not just that other people have perceived Cofnas to be motivated by racist ideas about race and intelligence; he has explicitly described himself using language which aligns with scientific racism. That's why I think that having the self-description is valuable. It gives more accurate context for how the whole public discourse about Arday started in the first place. Whynotlol2 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we then explain what the term entails in the text then? (cf. Nathan Cofnas#Emmanuel College, Cambridge). If so it wouldn't be much of a bother to me for which option is ultimately chosen (though I do prefer B as the clearer one here). Gotitbro (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I'm ok elaborating in the text. I'd ultimately prefer A, but I'm fine with effectively both. Deckocard21 (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Including both terms seems like a decent compromise, and is better than implementing Option A alone, in my opinion. It would still be WP:NPOV because it would use the euphemism as his self-description, followed by an explanation that the concept is more broadly known as scientific racism. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It is not a bad idea to frame Cofnas' identity and its implications within the context of his being fired from numerous institutions. SkylordreignKLA (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas' page has only one instance of him being 'dismissed,' so your claim appears to be inaccurate and if it is not and you have a WP:RS, then changes ought to be made to his page. Aapjes (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Option A Cofnas self-describes as a race-realist and I think that's fine to mention since it's useful to the reader to understand that perspectival detail in respect of the reference. But he doesn't self-define as a scientific racist and so the reportage doesn't say that. I appreciate the point about the re-direct - and I don't dispute the redirect, although the rationale has rough edges - but Cofnas has reasons specifically for not self-identifying as a scientific racist. Notably, he denies being racist at all. I think Cofnas could fairly be described as a scientific racist but that's not how he self-describes. It's common amongst folks like him - they specifically claim they're not racist. It's fair to say race realism is a form of scientific racism but it's incorrect to say they self-identify as scientific racists. I hope I've conveyed what I think it a subtle but important difference and I hope it isn't too tortuous to read! Emmentalist (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think aiming to present race-realism as distinct than racism is an inherent fallacy. SkylordreignKLA (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Distinct from, I think, rather than 'than', but this isn't a philosophy forum. It's a question, in the end, of what the sources say. Emmentalist (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither - most coverage doesn't call him a race realist, and using it would seem to be a POV way of describing his philosophy, whereas scientific racist (or "proponent of scientific racism" is an easy and direct fail of MOS:LABEL. We should succinctly describe his relevant views based on how they are described in the reliable sources. E.g. the NYT quote above: "Cofnas is known for his work suggesting that Black people were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people". Some synthesis of the various such descriptions used by sources is the way to go, rather than applying a contentious label in the way that our policy specifically says not to. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas is known for his work suggesting that Black people were genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people ... Otherwise known as scientific racism. This is not contentious. It's the WP:NPOV term as GorillaWarfare has already explained above. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

My point is not that it is wrong to describe this as scientific racism. My point is that MOS:LABEL (also known as MOS:RACIST) says that calling an individual a racist ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Here we are suggesting calling an individual a proponent of scientific racism (this is indistinguishable from calling him a racist) in wiki-voice. I don't want to avoid the meaning that he's a proponent of scientific racism, I want to avoid the label per the MOS. If we have to describe his views - I think we do as sources have pretty much all referenced his views in this context - then we should describe them, not label them. If you want to ignore the MOS that's fine, but I think that following our guidelines should be the default choice and doesn't need to be justified, deviating from them does need to be justified. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The article on scientific racism is highly questionable, as there definitely is scientific evidence for some genetic influence on athletic performance (like a difference in ACTN3 frequency in different genetic groups). The article describes any claims of genetic differences in performance as being unscientific and this seems to be false.

Also, according to the article it is only scientific racism if the belief is coupled with support or justification for racial discrimination. My understanding is that Cofnas supports hiring discrimination in favor of black people, which technically fits the description, but I think that most people would assume that scientific racism would mean that one would discriminate against the group one considers to have a lesser trait, not in favor, so I would argue that the use of the term would deceive people into drawing false conclusions. Aapjes (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't want to get into the discussion of whether it's accurate to label Cofnas as a scientific racist. Such a discussion is not relevant to my !vote, which explains why we shouldn't label him even if the label is applied to him (correctly or not) widely by RS, per MOS:LABEL. That kind of discussion might be relevant to some Option B !votes, not mine. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I was not replying to you, but to ~2026-42392-14 Aapjes (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. My reply still applies though. I rejected the TA's argument because it is incompatible with MOS:LABEL, and I reject your counter because it's made irrelevant by MOS:LABEL. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Option C One thing that helps to note, I think, and might help us straddle the two positions without violating NPOV, is that Cofnas recently said in his interview with Flemish state television "I think that there should be a science of race. I think that academia should study race, it should study hereditarianism."--and this has been fairly extensively reported upon. While it seems like a semantic difference, I think this licenses us to say "Cofnas is an advocate for the academic study of race" and then to link "academic study of race" to "race science." To me this seems to avoid flattering euphemism ("race realism") while avoiding describing him in a way that is not precisely supported by his statements or the reportage. Pudelpointed (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the direction but I think "academic study of race" sounds like Ethnic studies or various related fields, which isn't actually what we're referring to. To the point that linking to Race science would be something of an WP:EASTEREGG, even if it's the accurate destination for discussing Cofnas' views. Samuelshraga (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

To me, "academic study of race" is reasonably clear, but I totally hear what you're saying. I considered saying "scientific study of race," which could more cleanly link to race science, but rejected it because it implied the study of race was scientific, which could be problematically value-laden to some.

Here's a potential direction for revision that I think you might find clearer: "Cofnas advocates for the position that academia should include the study of racial disparities in intelligence." I think it is non-euphemistic, clearly supportable with reporting, and at the same time not an NPOV violation. Thoughts? Pudelpointed (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it avoids the issue that I pointed to before, but I think the sentence can be read to assume/assert racial disparities in intelligence - and I think RS mainly focussed on his belief in those disparities rather than his advocacy that they should be studied. But I don't necessarily have the broadest view of what RS said here, just commenting on what I've seen. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I could see grounds on which one might read it that way. What about reorganizing and borrowing a bit of the info from adjacent sentences? "Cofnas believes that there are racial disparities in intelligence, which should be studied by a proposed academic 'science of race'" and from thereon linking to "race science". Any better? Pudelpointed (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not fully up on how all the sources have discussed him. I've seen a few, but I haven't attempted to get a comprehensive picture. I say this because I think we should be led by the sources. That said, from my understanding, this sentence is accurate, avoids non-neutral formulations and complies with MOS:LABEL, so if sources exist for it I would support it as a starting point or compromise, pending a sentence that is explicitly drawn from the totality of the sources. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Neither. Other people involved in this story haven't been labelled in the article like this. If we have a label for Cofnas, we should have a label for everyone quoted - "lefty columnist X" or "Y, a right-wing crank" etc. // Hippo43 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't sound like a policy-based argument. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Try NPOV. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Try NPOV. Really? You're making close to zero effort here, and the whataboutisms don't help your case.

GorillaWarfare has clearly explained that scientific racism is in fact a WP:NPOV term. However, you seem to be arguing in favor of supporting WP:PROFRINGE views by refusing to call a spade a spade. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare clearly explained their opinion. I don't agree. Labelling Cofnas, who as far as I can tell, did not make scientific racist claims in his critique of Arday, but not labelling others quoted in the article, is not, IMO, appropriate. I don't think I have argued for any fringe theory anywhere. // Hippo43 (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

but not labelling others quoted in the article, is not, IMO, appropriate ... We follow what the sources say. For example, from a recent story on the BBC:

"Nathan Cofnas, a self-defined 'race realist' who argues genes play a 'non-trivial role' in intelligence differences between racial groups, was among those to question Arday's work and achievements. This prompted a weeks-long plagiarism row prior to his death on 14 August."

If reliable sources are pointing this out, then so should we. There is a lot of reporting similar to this, as I'm sure you are well aware. Mentioning (in one way or another) that Cofnas is a proponent of scientific racism is WP:DUE. This can't be avoided simply because you don't like it. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I initially supported Option A, see above. On reflection, I don't now. You're not arguing to reflect what reliable sources say, you're arguing to change the wording used by sources to make a point, because you do like it. That's not editing neutrally. // Hippo43 (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Option A - "Scientific racism" is the much more straightforward and NPOV terminology; we should also avoid using misleading euphemisms per IP above. It isn't possible to ignore the 'race/racism' dimensions of this, but we could ignore labelling his views on this page and simply give the (stunningly exaggerated, not remotely scientific, nor realistic) "in a meritocraccy there would be zero blacks outside of …" blogpost which got him sacked from Cambridge. But there is no justification for giving this euphemism any credibility. A "self-described race realist", is there some other kind? Is there a planet where this term is used as a neutral description other than in quotes?Pincrete (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• I think that scientific racism is actually a very vague term that is easily abused because of the connotations of the language used, and the article on the term is quite poor and probably contains falsehoods, based on the political beliefs of the maintainers of the article. The definition of the term is a mess. To start with, because it references race and dismisses it as not having a genetic component. While the various interpretations of racial groupings do not directly map to genetic groupings that are used by scientific research, it is not independent of it either. For example, people are commonly considered 'black' or 'African-American' because of their skin color, which is a genetic trait. So already, I would argue that the article contains falsehoods.

  The definition of scientific racism also goes beyond mere factual correctness, but also requires a certain political interpretation, which is highly questionable. For example, if someone thinks that certain races are inferior, but this should not be used to treat any group as inferior or superior, it does not meet this definition and thus is not scientific racism according to the article. My understanding is that Cofnas believes that discrimination in favor of black people is warranted, so that makes it highly questionable whether he meets the Wikipedia definition. Aapjes (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  An insincere WP:PROFRINGE comment. Your concerns with that article should be taken there. Though I wouldn't bother, everything you've stated above is but a rehash of thoroughly discredited pseudoscience, and Wikipedia has solid consensus to treat it as such sitewide. Gotitbro (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• I believe that it is against the rules to make personal attacks. Also, I don't understand how you can declare all my statements to be pseudoscience. Are you claiming that skin color is not largely genetic? Aapjes (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that it is against the rules to make personal attacks.

  And yet, you said above that "the article on the term [scientific racism] is quite poor and probably contains falsehoods, based on the political beliefs of the maintainers of the article."

  It definitely is better to assume good faith and address specific content-related issues rather than focusing on the editors. In any case, feel free to take those concerns to the relevant article talk page. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I did not address anyone personally, but am pointing to a general bias on Wikipedia, so that is very different from a claim that a specific person is being insincere, which is just a perception from a single person (who can't actually know whether someone is insincere or is sharing a genuine belief), not fact. Also, my belief is that every individual and every group is biased, so I don't see that claim as pejorative anyway. I think that Scientific Racism is a political term that is used as a weapon in debates, not neutral terminology, so a topic like that is inevitably going to be swarmed with people with strong political motivations. I also think that almost all WP:RS are going to err on one side due to the taboo on racism, so one side of the debate is going to be able to use those errors that have a systemic bias to make their case. So I don't see the point to fight an uphill battle on the Scientific Racism page.

  However, I can then still push back against people using that terminology here, by pointing out the flaws in the explanation of the terminology, and how using the term is likely to result in people drawing incorrect conclusions about the beliefs of Cofnas. In my opinion, using terminology that causes people to draw wrong conclusions is a form of misinformation. I think that it is almost certain that applying the term to Cofnas in this article is going to lead people to think that Cofnas wants fewer black people in certain positions, while his actual opinion is that he is in favor of hiring more black people than would happen in a pure merit-based system. This article already separately explains that Cofnas believes that black people are genetically inferior with regard to IQ, which is not a deceptive statement, so why add a deceptive statement as well? Aapjes (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for whatever pseudoscientific justifications ("misinformation" good grief) you want to bring for a fringe academic here. Scientific racism is not a standalone article that is Wikipedia-wide consensus and hard science fact which isn't going to be debated at this venue (or anywhere else on enwiki). Please bring yourself to read the relevant policies (particuarly WP:FRINGE) and stop derailing this RfC with these dubious WP:WALLSOFTEXT.

  And no you weren't personally attacked, your advocacy for pseudosceince was. Continue and this will end up at the apt forum. Gotitbro (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  Calling someone insincere is definitely a personal attack. You also completely proved my point that certain things cannot be safely discussed or attempted on Wikipedia with your threat.

  I also never gave justifications for the beliefs of Cofnas, but simply want prevent people from being misled about what he actually believes. I have absolutely no issue with people rejecting his actual beliefs and never said so. But it is typical for taboo subjects, that opposing the spread of misinformation about a designated target, is seen as supporting that person, rather than supporting basic principles of morality.

  Finally, it is sadly the case that writing carefully and accurately requires more words than wild accusations and misrepresentations that have no care for the truth. Aapjes (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  yes. Dedicate and wrap yourself in Wikipedia policy and misuse it so brazenly because it is so vague and defensive that if you just keep hammering acronyms at people you will be insulated from ever making an argument! You too can be a Wikipedia editor! Eschew personal relationships, put an unhealthy amount of pride in digital stickers, and circle the wagons when challenged! Wikipedia, where argumentation goes to die because argumentation is hard so we just don't do it... instead we do other things that are arguing our personal point but worded as policy adherence. ~2026-46569-97 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is again a violation of Wikipedia policy: WP:FAITH. The rules are there for a reason and the page of good faith explicitly describes that: "Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it"

  Of course I don't agree that I am acting in bad faith, but you are free to have your own opinion. However, that opinion does not legitimize you to violate the rules. Your accusations are also causing us to go entirely off-topic and I would prefer if you make on-topic comments. Aapjes (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

How ludicrous to have a 100 strong comments topic about how to label someone who is not the subject of the article. Instead, just stick to the facts i.e. his departure from Cambridge and an RS comment about why that was. Jontel (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree. // Hippo43 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Both If you must have a label despite my suggestion, it is reductionist and offensive to summarise someone with a label. Instead, describe his views. Also, we do not have to sit in judgement and should not WP:NPOV. Why not have some imagination and use both phrases? This would read e.g. 'Cofnas, some of whose philosophical views have been described as scientific racism or race realism...' Jontel (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

NPOV has us treating "race realism" as a euphemism for scientific racism. This is not a label concern, fringe is treated as fringe on enwiki and that is it. This is neither about Cofnas nor about Arday but describing accurately the advocacy of a fringe theory by the former.

PS: You've already made your opinion known for this above. Please do not mark duplicative comments as such twice here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I am offering for consideration two options outwith the initial survey suggestions which is a constructive and collaborationist approach. I do not see a problem with that. Jontel (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

You have made your opinion known once. You can edit that comment above ('Neither') but you should not be making two comments duplicating and/or contradicting each other. That is out of process for RfCs. Gotitbro (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbroagreed. The reason this topic even has so much dialogue is that fringe people coming out of the woodwork want to deny that their opinion is fringe.

It is worth mentioning that Cofnas included many fringe assertions in his core accusations against Arday and has subsequently done so in interviews:

https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge

https://substack.com/@nathancofnas/note/c-320148813?utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web SkylordreignKLA (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear me? Actually I don't care that much whether we should label Cofnas, but do care that we should not employ a quasi-respectable euphemism and should make clear his views. No one states them more clearly than Cofnas himself, his "blacks should stick to entertainment and sport" (my parphrase) comment is neither scientific nor realist. Apart from being offensive, it's pretty stupid and ill-informed. It is many years since I studied the claims on racial difference in mental abilities, but even those who believed that there are significant differences in such abilities would claim that they are relatively marginal. The difference might explain differences in representation in areas where intellectual abilities are crucial, but I know of none that would begin to support Cofnas' comments. Put crudely, even if on average there are differences between different racial groups, there are plenty of intellectually able ones in all groups (and plenty of intellectually inferior ones).

No institutions and no major individuals come out of this incident "smelling of roses", but Cofnas' racial animus is barely disguised and is relevant. Pincrete (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Cofnas did not claim that 'blacks should stick to entertainment and sport.' What he actually wrote was: "In a meritocracy [...] Blacks would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment." There is a fundamental difference between a truth claim ("would") and a value claim ("should"). Of course, you are free to believe that Cofnas' truth claim is motivated by racial animus, but that kind of editorializing does not belong in Wikipedia articles. Aapjes (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledged that I was paraphrasing, for reasons of brevity and think it was a reasonable inference for me to draw from what he actually said, which remain stupendously stupid and poorly informed remarks for Cofnas to have made. There would be no intelligent, articulate, notable, accomplished black people outside of sports and entertainment if merit alone were the criteria? Please. Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

No, it is is not a reasonable inference, since what you wrote has a different meaning to what Cofnas actually wrote, and it also does not align with his actual beliefs. So you are misrepresenting his beliefs.

You are actually misrepresenting his beliefs again in this comment, as your paraphrase that "there would be no intelligent, articulate, notable, accomplished black people outside of sports and entertainment if merit alone were the criteria" is not consistent with what he wrote. If you cannot wrap your head around Cofnas' actual beliefs, it is probably better if you don't participate in a discussion about how (and whether) to represent those beliefs on the Arday page.

Finally, your disapproval of his beliefs completely irrelevant here. Wikipedia is supposed to be written from WP:NPOV, not to provide commentary on people's beliefs. Aapjes (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. We are not required to use the self-description of pseudoscientists when describing their fringe views. We should rather use reliable sources that are not fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Correct, but irrelevant to the subject of the previous three or four comments in this sub-thread. What Aapjes is saying is that we have to correctly represent what people actually say, even if they have fringe opinions. For example, saying "flat-earthers want to flatten the Earth" would be incorrect. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 You seem to be very confused about the meaning of WP:FRINGE, as you invoke it completely incorrectly. The rule says that WP "should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is" and that "statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources."

However, everything we are discussing here is about the beliefs of a single individual. WP:FRINGE would be relevant if we would be discussing whether his beliefs should be included in a page on a topic like Scientific racism, but we are not arguing about a change to that page. If this page on Arday is going to describe Cofnas' motivations, then WP:FRINGE cannot apply, since Cofnas is a real individual and anyone's motivations are always going to be personal and we either accurately describe the personal motivations of that person or we misrepresent them.

Ultimately, the famous article that brought all this attention on Arday was not written by 'race realism' or 'scientific racism,' but by a real person. Aapjes (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

A "real person" who is widely described by reliable sources as an adherent to the racist pseudoscientific theory of "scientific racism" which we should accurately describe using reliable sources rather than his prefered, euphemistic, "race realism" claim, which is a WP:FRINGE in-universe description of his racist pseudoscience beliefs. Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

No one has actually presented any evidence that he is widely described that way. In general, I see people regularly making sweeping claims about that many WP:RS allegedly write, but a distinct lack of actual evidence that this is in fact true.

Secondly, I don't really understand why you are acting as if I advocated for the use of the term "race realism," when you can just check my vote to see that I did not.

Finally, I only intervened in this subthread because someone was distorting the actual statements by Cofnas, putting words in his mouth that do not match his actual beliefs. You are just hijacking this subthread to redo the same conversation that has been happening elsewhere. I don't think that this is helpful. Aapjes (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

None of this is helpful. This is just clogging up the Talk page now. Both of you need to step back and stop. Whynotlol2 (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

"Ultimately, the famous article that brought all this attention on Arday was not written by 'race realism' or 'scientific racism,' but by a real person." This is the most brain-rotting, dumbass shit I've ever read. Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones (At the Tobes of Hades) 14:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

it's relevant because he exaggerated the plagiarism and lies that other people corroborated? ~2026-46569-97 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why you state that Cofnas "exaggerated the plagiarism and lies" as if it is established fact. As far as I know, there has not been any proper scientifically valid study into the validity of the plagiarism accusations (with a clearly described and reproducible methodology). So what is your basis for claiming that that Cofnas exaggerated the plagiarism?

The second part of your claim is very strange, since Cofnas was very careful not to accuse Arday of lies regarding his life story, but called them very improbable. I'm also not aware of any WP:RS that have shown any of the claims that were called out, to be provably true. Surely these sources would (need to) be added to the article if they existed, so if you have any such sources that are not in the article, I suggest you add them or invite a discussion on their inclusion. Aapjes (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Option B and a little Wait and see I prefer option B but I'm also willing to be flexible if another more accurate/precise term comes up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I think that this survey violates WP:NPOV. Both provided options are biased and are preferred by different sides of the debate exactly because the bias of the terminology works in their favor. The only thing that this vote could achieve, is to allow one side of the debate to inject their bias into the article, which violates one of the 3 core principles of Wikipedia. Aapjes (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Also note that WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, although this policy seems to be violated quite often. Aapjes (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. GorillaWarfare has clearly explained that scientific racism is in fact a NPOV term. This is a NONO term. Flat Earth Theory isn't a "scientific flat earth theory". Astrology isn't a "scientific astrology". Fringe isn't a "scientific fringe". In fact, there is nothing scientific in racism. If you want to insist on this obvious fact, simply say so, instead of using a confusing label. Pldx1 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  'Scientific' in that phrase definitely makes me grind my teeth too... 'Racial essentialism' or 'racial hereditarianism', anyone? I think there's a couple of sources for those terms in the academic literature discussing Cofnas's views.  Tewdar  16:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agree with a previous commenter that pseudoscientific racism definitely sounds better, but this is the term we've got. Related discussions should be had at the scientific racism page. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• A lot of people treat science like a religion, where they believe that science validates their opinions. But science can never say what morality is correct. The term 'scientific racism' is a political term that is used to attack people with a different morality, by claiming that their research is unscientific, but in reality, it is applied based on whether the person who uses the term agrees with the morality of the people doing the research, not whether their research actually follows scientific norms. Aapjes (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  The term 'scientific racism' is a political term that is used to attack people with a different morality, by claiming that their research is unscientific, but in reality, it is applied based on whether the person who uses the term agrees with the morality of the people doing the research, not whether their research actually follows scientific norms.

  Got a source for that? ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  It is very obvious if you look at how politicized the discussions around scientists like Charles Murray, Richard Lynn and others is and was, like can be seen here. I'm pretty sure that Murray has never proposed eugenics, so the demonstrations don't actually address Murray's real position and don't at all address it from a scientific point of view (are there scientific flaws in his work?), but merely from a political/moral point of view that is not even accurate. And of course, violent demonstrations to prevent someone from openly showing their work is pretty much the antithesis of science, where people are supposed to present evidence to convince people of who is right, not bully researchers into silence.

  You can contrast this with the lack of such protests against people who do other genetic/racial research on humans, like HBB gene research, skin color research, etc.

  Also, researchers are getting their works rejected from journals and are denied access to important data sets when their research is deemed to be politically problematic, not because of the quality of their research. Also see this.

  My personal position is that science should be judged on the scientific qualities of their output (which is often lacking IMO), and society should then deal with the outcomes whether or not they are convenient to people's world views. Although I do of course recognize that this clashes with normal human behavior, which heavily leans into rationalizations, rather than rationality. Aapjes (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is a whole pack of nonsense put forward as apologia for pseudoscience and supported by an editorial in City Journal. Come on. Please don't waste people's time. Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm in favor of allowing researchers to use proper scientific techniques to study things, which is the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. It's also rather ironic that you dismiss my comment as being nonsense, when you give zero actual arguments.

  Note I've edited my comment (not in reaction to your reply) to add another link showing that the NIH restrictions stifle completely legitimate research into links between intelligence and certain genes, also when that doesn't involve race or regional genetic groupings. Aapjes (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Since you subsequently edited your comment to add an even less reliable source I should note that the second link added to the above points to an Anthropic associated Evopsych guy's blog. So, again, we're looking at a hit dog hollering rather than an actual critique of the academic treatment of scientific racism. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your personal antipathy to Anthropic is not actually a proper argument. That you consider it useful to personally attack this person for something that has no relevance here, makes me question your ability to engage in useful conversation. Secondly, a quick search shows no sources, reliable or otherwise, that link Stuart Ritchie to evolutionary psychology, so your own claim is much more poorly supported than mine. Note that even if you consider both of my sources completely unreliable, it is simply a fact that NIAGADS themselves claim that they have this policy.

  Also note that I was just giving background information in response to a direct question. That the NIAGADS policy apparently is not considered notable by the media would be relevant if I were arguing that it should be added to an article, but I am not. That it is actually reliable seems hard to deny, given that the gatekeepers of the data themselves claim it to be true. Aapjes (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

  1. What's unreliable is their interpretation of what "research" the data-set restriction is blocking. Bringing in pseudoscientists from Evopsych to defend pseudoscientists from Scientific racism is not exactly providing a clear and unbiased view of the effect of a data access policy. As for Anthropic, it's association with the TESCREAL movement via its in-house philosophers and, through that, its ties to the ideological commitments described as early as 1995 in The Californian Ideology are all very well documented in actual reliable sources.
  2. If you have no interest in introducing these unreliable sources to the article and if these unreliable sources do not comment on the open proponent of scientific racism, Nathan Cofnas, then this entire digression runs afoul of WP:NOTFORUM and you should cease. This is not Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

     Thanks for that WP:SOAP. It is indeed better to stop this conversation. Aapjes (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

     Twitter. The one thing in this world that it is OK to deadname. Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones (At the Tobes of Hades) 00:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Charles Murray is Frank Barone if he thought he could be a social scientist. There is such a thing as right and wrong, reputable and hack. We are not a postmodernist website. Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones (At the Tobes of Hades) 00:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is explicitly not a website that judges morality, but is supposed to be written from a WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the issue that I pointed at, where people protest against Murray based on a claim that he has a belief, that he has never advocated for, as far as I know, is a matter of factual correctness, not morality.

  I never made a claim about the morality or correctness of Murray's actual beliefs. They are irrelevant to the point I was making. Aapjes (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  I mean right and wrong when it comes to objective reality, not morality. Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones (At the Tobes of Hades) 16:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  That interpretation of your words is still not relevant to what I wrote, as the protesters were not protesting the quality of his work. Aapjes (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this survey is WP:NPOV. The obvious consequence of including Cofnas' racial views and ejection from Cambridge is that it offers an implication that these are the reasons he exposed Arday, without an RS saying this. 'Placing unrelated or contrasting sentences next to each other on Wikipedia can create subtle bias by leading readers to draw unfair conclusions.' Instead of introducing editorial bias, produce an RS making such a statement. Jontel (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you mean by this survey is WP:NPOV but it's completely normal for us to include phrases like "self-described race realist" if something similar is routinely used in reliable sources discussing the Arday affair. From my own informal survey, it seems to be the case that they mention something like this more often than not whenever Cofnas' role is mentioned, which strongly suggests that something like this language is due. Generalrelative (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• B is preferable because it's well sourced and less euphemistic (though as others have pointed out above, nether term is especially clear). The main article on Cofnas states in its second sentence He is known for controversies surrounding his advocacy of scientific racism. And that sentence summarizes a number of well-sourced statements in the article body. Indeed, more could be added. That said, because the self-described "race realist" formulation is more widely used in sources specifically about the Arday affair, there is a decent case for option A too. What is clearly contrary to NPOV, however, is to leave the descriptor out entirely, since it seems the majority of sources mentioning Cofnas say something about the fact that promoting racism is his #1 distinguishing feature. Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is a very good point. Cofnas is inextricably linked to his racist pseudoscience evangelism (as well as his recently reported links with white supremacists). For the reasons mentioned by GorillaWarfare and Gotitbro, which were clear, logical and convincing, I support option B. Keshetsven (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Option B. The term 'Race realist' was popularized by Jared Taylor in the pages of American Renaissance. It is the favored self description of David Duke, among others. We should go with well-sourced, reality based terminology instead. - MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Option B seems better supported by the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note to closer - The editor Hippo43 has been indefinitely blocked for edit wars on this article. I don't know RfC protocol, but assume that may invalidate their comments/participation here. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC has been open for 10 days. During that time, it seems that both descriptors have been left out of the article. From a quick survey of the !votes I count 22 overall. Of these 12 are for B, 4 are for A, 5 are for neither, and the rest are for something else. While I wouldn't presume to know how this discussion will ultimately conclude, I think it's justified to implement B for now. If consensus swings some other way, that language can be changed. Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  The word 'consensus' does not mean a slight majority. What you suggest violates Wikipedia rules: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY Aapjes (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's more than a slight majority - though the absolute majority for Option B looks more like a classic internet pile-on based on a false dichotomy than any kind of policy-and-guideline-based rationale for content. A lot of Option B supports were just arguments against Option A, or didn't make an argument at all. Option B supporters have said both that option B is better supported by the sources, and also that option B should be chosen even though option A is better supported by the relevant sources. The Option A supports weren't much better.

  Even though I'm a "neither" !voter, and bearing in mind all of the above, it would be a brave closer to overturn the majority here. Not sure I have faith that such will happen, easier to count the votes. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Click on show to view the contents of this section

• 12 out of 22 votes is literally the smallest majority that can exist. One vote less and half of the voters would be in favor of B and half would be in favor of an alternative option.

  I understand that it is easier to "count the votes," but this goes against the rules of Wikipedia, where you are supposed to find consensus on a more neutral phrasing that anyone can accept if they compromise a bit. I am personally not seeing a consensus appearing.

  My preference would be to restart this entire discussion, but then without the influence of this false dichotomy where people were asked to pick between two biased phrasings and we never even had a preliminary discussion about what the purpose would be of including Cofnas beliefs. For example, if the goal is to explain that Cofnas' role in this sage is controversial due to his beliefs, then why not write exactly that? Perhaps people have other reasons for including his beliefs, but if we don't discuss that, then the end result is that people are just voting based on their moral views, which also goes very much against Wikipedia's rules on WP:NPOV. Aapjes (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Aapjes, it appears that you are bludgeoning this discussion and with irrelevant factoids and talking points. This can be disruptive. I am advising that you stop. I left a comment below and on your talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Quinn, I don't see how I did any such thing in the comment you are replying to. I interpret this as the third attempt (by 3 different people) to use subtle forms of intimidation and a personal attack, which is against the rules. Aapjes (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It is not intimidation or personal attack for multiple people to be frustrated by your behaviour and point out that you are WP:BLUDGEONING. I've already had to hide chains of your off-topic comments. Please refrain from this behaviour in future; you are patently derailing the Rfc and it is not constructive. It may be actionable if you continue, which you have been warned about. Whynotlol2 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option B as a simple objective description. A is self-serving spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  This whole article is self-spinning. When I told them to reduce the allegations claims in the opening paragraph to make room for Arday's death, they said "You can see the dates." SkylordreignKLA (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Option A: too euphemistic and a general reader likely wouldn't know what it means. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  Great strawman. The general reader wouldn't know what "self-described" could mean. Poor general reader ! There is a guy. We are not taking his own description --race realist-- as granted and therefore, we are not reapeting it in Wikipedia's voice, but only as a self-sourced description. On the contrary, describing the same guy, in Wikipedia's voice, as a scientific racist is only endorsing the general pretenses of the said guy. Some people here seem sorry to see their preferred DEI poster person being proven as being a cheater. But don't use a wrong time flow for telling the story. Cofnas hasn't said: "Arday is a black person, and therefore is a fraudster". Cofnas has proven from scratch that Arday's thesis was a fraud. And only afterwards added "are we surprised?". For a scientific evaluation of Cofnas, we have https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2020.1805199. Pldx1 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Language such as 'Some people here seem sorry to see their preferred DEI poster person being proven as being a cheater' is obviously not constructive or good faith. My preference is also for Option A, but we cannot be accusatory towards other commenters for holding different opinions. Whynotlol2 (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link to the paper about Cofnas. Interesting 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". Many participants of this discussions seem to think that "race realism" is just an euphemistic synonym for "scientific racism", and I also thought so, but that's not quite true. 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. (This is not an argument for using one or the other term when describing Cofnas. I just found it interesting that they don't quite mean the same thing.) — Chrisahn (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, this suggests that we should not say that Cofnas is a "proponent of scientific racism". The authors of the paper in Philosophical Psychology, who are highly critical of his views, say that he believes in racial realism, but they avoid accusing him of being a proponent of scientific racism. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option A - to an uninformed reader, "scientific racism" could be just as euphemistic as race realism due to the frankly bogus assertions 99% of the field is based on. Also prefer it for reasons similar to (though not becasue) MOS:RETAIN. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 16:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
• Neither - frankly I think Cofnas's importance here is being overstated. He had a minor role in leaking the story to the public after Arday silenced the Times Higher, but the malpractice allegations did not begin with him and I can't see he contributed much to them. Even if his problematic ideas were a part of his motivation (and there's no evidence for that), focussing on them distracts from the fact that the plagiarism scoop came from reputable sources: when the Times Higher, the Guardian and the Telegraph all do independent investigations and find the same thing, it really is not important that someone less reputable agrees.Doric Loon (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose B, also oppose A. Many readers (like many participants in this discussion) will probably think that "race realism" is just a euphemism for "scientific racism" (although their meanings are not quite the same) and that we're letting Cofnas off the hook too easily. We should avoid that impression. On the other hand, if we say Cofnas is a proponent of scientific racism, we violate WP:LABEL and WP:BLP. It makes sense to describe Cofnas in some way when we mention him here: Most soures do when they mention him in the context of the Arday affair. But we should find another way. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  We already desribe Cofnas's views, we don't need to add an explicit label. The short paragraph about him consists of four sentences. The third sentence mentions his views on race. (I just added "which many considered offensive".) The fourth sentence cites his quote about "Blacks in high-profile positions" and that he was fired from Cambridge because of it. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Many in this discussion claim that option B is supported by sources, but so far nobody has provided any evidence for this claim. There are many sources that use more or less the same words as option A, but none that use something similar to option B. Therefore, option B is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, and since this is WP:BLP issue, we can't use it. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Not so. See my comment below where I cite several reliable sources describing Cofnas as a "scientific racist". Generalrelative (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  The sources you cited do not describe Cofnas as a "scientific racist". — Chrisahn (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Many in this discussion claim that option B is supported by sources Indeed, a considerable part of the discussions in this thread are about unsupported claims stated as fact or even claims that go against the source. I think that one of the main reasons why we keep going in circles is because several editors seem very convinced that their statements are correct even though they cannot provide satisfactory sources. I would like to make a friendly suggestion to those editors to either provide those sources or otherwise accept that their preferred terminology is not supported by WP:RS and to accept a solution that either is supported by sources or that we can find a consensus on it being correct, even if it does not go as far as some want. Aapjes (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• B - I guess I'll copy what I said above here: I think especially now that we have a stand-alone article, we can provide the succinct explanation here and ensure the "self-described" part is in the main bio. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Neither Per Doric Loon et al. above—beyond which, there's no need to overinflate Cofnas's contribution to the affair. Serious and ideologically diverse RS news sources have combed through Arday's claims independently of Confas (and will no doubt continue to do so until they move on to whatever's next). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Has anyone made a proper list of descriptions of this Cofnas fellow in the context of Arday? This would help us reach a proper determination on which description(s) are WP:DUE. If one already exists, I must've not seen it due to the sheer length of this talk page. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  See this comment from Generalrelative below. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note: my comment below is not a proper survey. I was specifically countering the incorrect assertion that no sources refer to Cofnas as a proponent of scientific racism.

  A proper, neutral survey would take a lot more time, due to the large number of sources that mention Cofnas in conjunction with his accusations against Arday. I've resisted devoting that much time to this, and instead based my !vote on my recollection of what I've read.

  If someone wants to perform such a survey, I'd suggest googling "Arday Cofnas" –– without any additional filtering –– and then noting how each of the first 10–20 reliable sources describe Cofnas. Such reliable sources will probably mostly be newspapers, but any academic publications should count too. Generalrelative (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  You did not provide any reliable sources that refer to Cofnas as a proponent of scientific racism. There still is no evidence against the assertion you call incorrect. Otherwise, I completely agree that a survey would be useful, and your suggestions are a very good start. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment to the closer. Please note that User:Aapjes appears to be BLUDGEONing this RFC as well as bringing to the discussion irrelevant PROFRINGE factoids and talking points, and thus this RFC, like any other, is NOTAFORUM.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  You've made almost the exact same personal attack twice, both times purely based on vague assertions with no evidence and no way to rebut them since there is no substance. Please refrain from this disruptive behavior. I will keep asking for sources and otherwise attempt to steer this thread to a consensus result that is actually consistent with WP:RS or an (actual) consensus opinion. Trying to get your way by intimidation tactics is not how things go on Wikipedia. Aapjes (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Either or both. Both options are correct. The argument between them seems marginal as they both mean the same thing. Either would be acceptable. The proposed "neither" option is not acceptable. Saying nothing would be a glaring ommision that would do an active disservice to our readers and make the article less informative and harder to understand. Cofnas is not embarrassed about his views. We do not need to be coy on his behalf. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC) (Note: !vote updated to add "or both". --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC))

  I initially thought so too, but they don't mean the same thing. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  How so? You mean that one is pseudoscience and one is pseudophilosophy? Or that they are two different sorts of pseudoscience? Anyway, even if you can point to some specific differences, there is no significant distinction to make in this context and it is clear that, insofar as there is a difference, Cofnas is both. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is a specific difference that also affects ethical questions and judgements. See my comment above. Your claim "Cofnas is both" is unsourced. There are many reliable sources that say something like "self-described race realist", but none that say "proponent of scientific racism". — Chrisahn (talk) Chrisahn (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  but none that say "proponent of scientific racism" Maybe not in precisely those words but the description is well sourced. See e.g.:

  • Concerns have been raised about Cofnas due to his association with controversial "race science", also known as the widely-discredited scientific racism. "Ghent University under fire for appointing US philosopher with ties to 'scientific racism'" The Brussels Times.
  • 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. Larsen et al. "More than provocative, less than scientific: A commentary on the editorial decision to publish Cofnas" Philosophical Psychology.
  • The academic has been accused of racism and has made a number of controversial statements, including writing a blog advocating for scientific racism in 2024. Lucy Jackson, "29 Scottish academics sign letter in support of Nathan Cofnas suspension", The National.
  • Mr Cofnas is an advocate of so-called 'scientific racism' Gabriel McKay, "Jason Arday accuser Nathan Cofnas suspended by university", The Herald.

  True that these sources are not as plentiful as those that limit themselves to "self-described race realist" but it's flatly incorrect to say that they don't exist.

  There are also sources that attribute the description, e.g.

  • Critics have described Cofnas' work as a form of scientific racism Seher Asaf, "University under fire over hiring of ‘race realist’ philosopher", Times Higher Education.
  • Students said that his three-year fellowship was tantamount to funding "scientific racism" Parker and Vall, "Cambridge says academic’s ‘offensive’ race views were free speech" The Times

  Generalrelative (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the sources, but they use more cautious expressions like "association with", "can reasonably be read as pandering", "has been accused of". None say "is a proponent of scientific racism".

  Only one of them explicitly says "is an advocate of scientific racism", but that one is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. Our article about Cofnas at 18:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC):

  [...] postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University [...] his advocacy of scientific racism [...] Cofnas published a 2024 blog post arguing that black people were, 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.

  Article in The Herald, published 19:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC) :

  [...] postdoctoral researcher at Ghent University [...] is an advocate of so-called 'scientific racism' and was fired by Emmanuel College, Cambridge after a 2024 blog post in which he argued black people were, on average, less intelligent than other groups [...] He claimed that in a meritocratic system black people "would disappear from almost all high-profile positions outside of sports and entertainment"

  — Chrisahn (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Adding more examples here:

  • Cofnas has been accused of promoting pseudoscientific ideas of racial difference in his online writings, and was reportedly among bloggers recommended to the Palantir founder Peter Thiel by a “race science” researcher. Chris Osuh, "Jason Arday accuser given three-month teaching ban but can continue research", The Guardian.

  ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  "has been accused of promoting pseudoscientific ideas of racial difference" is very different from "is a proponent of scientific racism". Since this is a WP:BLP issue, we have to be cautious and precise. As cautious and precise as the sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Pseudoscientific ideas used to falsely claim racial differences, hmmm. Where have I seen that concept defined? Chrisahn, you are really splitting hairs. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, I'm not splitting hairs, I'm following Wikipedia's rules, in particular WP:BLP. "Scientific racism" is not the same as "race realism" (see e.g. the scientific paper cited above, and the Wikipedia article you linked but apparently didn't read), and "has been accused of X" is not the same as "is a proponent of X". — Chrisahn (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good catch re. WP:CITOGENESIS at The Herald. Can you clarify why you believe "race realism" isn't just a euphemism for scientific racism? Generalrelative (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Because the scientific article cited above makes that distinction, and so did our article about scientific racism since at least August 2020, until you changed it a few hours ago. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Of course, race supremacists and other proponents of scientific racism will tend to say they are merely "race realists". In that sense, it's likely that "race realism" is often used as a euphemism for scientific racism. But the terms don't actually mean the same thing. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think this distinction is rather artificial especially in the context of a man who has openly said he doesn't believe black people can be academics. Simonm223 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I also don't think Wikipedia should be describing anybody as a "race realist" as it's a thoroughly non-neutral term. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Strictly speaking, it's a neutral term (see e.g. the scientific paper cited above), but as I said before, I agree that we shouldn't use it in this case. Hence my opposition to option A. See above. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  "he doesn't believe black people can be academics" He didn't say that. Close, but not quite. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  The report followed a Substack post by Nathan Cofnas, an academic who was previously embroiled in a free speech row at Cambridge after he suggested in a blogpost that, in a meritocracy, there would be “close to zero” black professors at Harvard. These attempts at hair splitting are becoming vexatious. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quote. It shows that he didn't say what you claimed he said. That's all. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  ...until you changed it a few hours ago. I'm sure you're not implying that I edited that article as a sneaky way to influence this discussion, seeing as my edits were in response to another longtime, clueful editor raising concerns on that article's talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if their concerns were inspired by your own confusion expressed in this thread (though I don't know if this is the case). In any case, as a longtime editor yourself, you will be aware that WP is not itself a reliable source. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  No, I'm not implying anything sinister. I think your edit wasn't an improvement and should be reverted, since as far as I can tell the terms are not synonyms, but that's another issue. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• B "Race realist" might be more common in sources, but "proponent of scientific racism" is common enough as well. We should call him a racist or proponent of scientific racism per WP:EUPH. "Race realist" is just a self descriptions racists use to make their ideology sound slightly less hateful. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2026 (UT
• Option B On the face of it, "Race realist" seems to indicate that the person who self describes themselves as such, is saying they are realistically assessing the issue of race in their society. Obviously, regarding Cofnas, who describes himself as a "Race realist" there is nothing realistic about his assessment pertaining to the issue of race. His ideas are outmoded and fell out of favor with scientific consensus long ago. And that is according to many reliable sources. So, I think we should call a spade a spade and describe Cofnas, as a proponent of scientific racism. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Without having read all of the finer points of this commentary in minute detail (for which I apologise unreservedly—there is quite a lot to take in), would it not behove us to work out the Cofnas bits over at Talk:Nathan Cofnas, and then, once consensus is reached for that subject, bring the relevant aspects here to our Arday article (or its Talk page) as needed? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC is already in progress. I'd say wait and see how this gets closed, and we can continue the discussion from there. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Neither, survey is malformed to achieve a predetermined goal. Why should Cofnas be qualified in a way no-one else is in the entire article?. Closer should discard it for this very reason. XavierItzm (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• This was brought up earlier, but the discussion fizzled out. How about both? Cofnas self-describes as a race realist, a term considered a euphemism for scientific racism, or something along those lines. This would both capture that he self-describes as a racialist thinker, and gives additional context.Deckocard21 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I could live with that. I've added "both" as an option to my previous "either" !vote. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option B. The purpose is to briefly tell readers who Nathan Cofnas is and why it's relevant to the Jason Arday article. The notion that we should be restricted to how sources reporting on the Arday suicide describe him is baffling. We have a full-blown article on Cofnas where we've decided that we can describe him (essentially) this way. We should not adopt a ridiculous euphemism to describe him in the context of the Arday article. Readers can click on Nathan Cofnas and scientific racism to get a fuller picture of how he describes himself and how this terminology is used. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  I previously tried to institute a similar change, using wording directly from the lead of Nathan Cofnas, and was reverted prior to this RFC starting. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option B but I wouldn't be particularly opposed to some alternative descriptors of his views. Oppose option A as a violation of FRINGE and NPOV. "Race realism" is the euphemistic label scientific racists have tried to shift to. We aren't promoting scientific racism by using the language laundered by its proponents.Katzrockso (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  I also would not be opposed to alternative, non-euphemistic language, such as an advocate for scientific racism, which I have previously tried to implement and which is adapted from the lead of his own article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Word limit

As of 08:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC), this request for comment is subject to a word limit of 1,000 words per editor. "Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere)" are excluded from the word count. (This restriction is an arbitration enforcement action within the WP:CT/R-I and WP:CT/BLP contentious topics.)

At the time of writing, a word counter script estimates the following current word and comment counts for editors who have participated in the discussion. The estimated word counts do not factor in the exclusion for citations and quotations:

Estimated word and comment counts for participating editors in this request for comment, as of 09:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Estimated word and comment counts for participating editors in this request for comment, as of 09:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Author	Word Count	Comment Count
Aapjes	3840	33
Samuelshraga	1663	20
Chrisahn	1160	21
~2026-42392-14	984	22
Generalrelative	789	8
Simonm223	678	16
Steve Quinn	552	6
Gotitbro	509	9
Jontel	485	7
GorillaWarfare	444	4
Whynotlol2	430	9
Pincrete	351	3
Pldx1	326	3
Endymion.12	298	4
Pudelpointed	275	3
Emmentalist	184	2
Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa	157	3
Hippo43	137	5
DanielRigal	127	2
SkylordreignKLA	117	4
Cl3phact0	113	2
~2026-46569-97	109	3
Doric Loon	107	1
Bytor, Big Money, and the Bones	93	4
ActivelyDisinterested	79	3
Deckocard21	77	2
Aquillion	71	1
~2026-45929-73	63	1
Keshetsven	43	1
Knightoftheswords281	41	1
Rhododendrites	39	1
MrOllie	37	1
Tewdar	34	1
Hiobazard	31	1
Dr vulpes	26	1
Shocksingularity	15	1
ToeSchmoker	14	1
AndyTheGrump	11	1

@Aapjes, Samuelshraga, and Chrisahn: Please be aware that your estimated word count exceeds the 1,000-word limit that is now in place.

@~2026-42392-14: Please be aware that your estimated word count is 98% of the 1,000-word limit that is now in place. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank God. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Aapjes (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Recruitment details

Most readers (myself included) have very little knowledge of the British university system, aside from what they might have seen in the Harry Potter saga. In this instance, we are dealing with a college (Jesus College), a university (Cambridge), and a faculty (Faculty of Education). Which of these entities was the precise recruiter of Arday? Is a copy of the "job description" available? What were the details of the recruitment process? What are the implications (explicit or not) of being linked with Jesus College (instead of another college) ? I think that an UK insider would be more efficient than me in researching these questions. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, Harry Potter is not set in a university, though some scenes were filmed in Oxford. ;-)

The Oxbridge situation is more complicated than in most British universities. The university is divided into colleges, which originally were like residential dorms with in-dorm teaching. A college teaches many subjects. But there are also faculties (historically more recent) which coordinate the teaching of particular subjects across the colleges, so that a subject like sociology is not completely fragmented, which it would be if the colleges didn't cooperate. My understanding, as an Oxbridge outsider, is that a professor is appointed by the university, but the faculty will run the search committee, and the successful candidate will get a fellowship at a college afterwards. Doric Loon (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I found generic criteria for being a professor at Cambridge, so presumably the colleges would be required to follow those standards. Anyway, I looked through the generic page on Academic ranks in the United Kingdom as well as the University of Cambridge and Colleges of the University of Cambridge pages, but none of these offer any real detail about the process, responsibilities, etc of the recruitment of professors. I could not find any WP:RS describing these things with a quick search. I would think that this normally doesn't interest many people, so it might be impossible to find sources that do not require WP:OR. This may have changed due to Arday and people might want to be on the lookout for future publications, especially if Cambridge publishes a report about the hiring of Arday, where they may explain such things and then the media might report on that in ways that allow such things to be added to Wikipedia with proper sourcing. Aapjes (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

This 12 August statement by Cambridge Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice says:

We will now investigate the circumstances around his appointment by the Faculty of Education back in 2022 [...] The findings will then inform a review of the process for the appointment of senior academic roles. As you are fully aware, appointments to senior academic roles, as in the case of the Faculty of Education and Jason Arday, are currently led at Department level.

If I'm not mistaken, "Department" and "Faculty" are more or less synonymous in this context. See e.g. . — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, Sir. And the link you provided does show there is correlation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• The first five undersignatures of the GoodLawPetition were five College Masters or prominent professors at Cambridge. A few days later (on August 6, 2026), only Simon Woolley remained, and only in a strictly personal capacity. What could be said about that (=what are the RS saying)? Pldx1 (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  This seems unrelated to "recruitment details" was this intended for a different thread? Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  I had the impression that the five could be related to some degree with the recruiting process. I am searching for RS having noticed this factoid... and commented about. Pldx1 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• At https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/jason_arday_appointment_to_cambr, there are some documents issued by Cambridge Uni concerning this recruitment: job description and requirements among them. A description of the commission is also given. Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is a bunch of primary source documents. What exactly are you expecting us to do with this? Simonm223 (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  Expectation 1: "us" could check if these documents are real and genuine, and not a forgery

  Expectation 2: "us" could read them.

  Expectation 3: "us" could find if some RS discovered the very existence of these documents, or even commented them.

  Searching often helps finding, and more people searching could result into more findings.. Pldx1 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is WP:NOR, surely? Whynotlol2 (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  It would be a violation of WP:OR for Wikipedia to interpret these primary source documents. If @Pldx1 believes reliable secondary sources exist that do, they are welcome to find such sources. But they can hardly complain other editors aren't doing it for them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  English grammar, please ! "we could find if some RS discovered the very existence of these documents, or even commented them" means "find if some RS discovered them or even find if some RS commented them". And doesn't mean "we could find if some RS discovered them or, otherwise, we could comment them by ourselves". Pldx1 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Technical/formatting question

The cite templates in "Selected works" section include the parameter ref=none. What is the purpose of this? Is it needed? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Katharine Birbalsingh

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

---

I was interested in this discussion by Katharine Birbalsingh, which sees the Arday story in terms of white guilt. Since this is a highly contentious issue, I'd rather leave it to those who have been working here intensively to decide if that goes in the article. But it seems to me that her criticism of Cambridge is rather more relevant and interesting than that of Cofnas. Doric Loon (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

She's a crank and that is a YouTube video on her personal YouTube channel. She is just a commentator here. She wasn't centrally involved in the events that the article covers in the way that Cofnas was. There's no RS here, nothing we can use. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Whynotlol2 (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Using the so called "white guilt" to explain why a nine members committee at Cambridge was so unanimous about the Jason Arday's recruitment is what some bloggers are already doing. In some months, the formal inquiries launched at Cambridge will sheed more light on this question. Or maybe not. Pldx1 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Article length and WP:SIZERULE

This article is now nearly 12,000 words long, which is a touch short of the standard word limit for a taught master's degree in the UK. Per WP:SIZERULE, this would be too long for most articles, but is definitely too long for this article. This article is concerned with an academic who met WP:NACADEMIC, but was not a household name until the end of July. The reason the article is so large is because we seem have to accumulated references to practically every piece of coverage and public comment since the recent news story broke. The mere fact that some detail, opinion, or biographical fact appears in an WP:RS, does not mean that it automatically has to be discussed in this article.

Making this page navigable and readable can be achieved without spinning off another article. I would be strongly opposed to this. Everything that needs to be said about Jason Arday's life and career, the scandal, and the press coverage, can be said in this article in less than half the current word count. The article should be reduced for the following practical reasons:

• No one is going to read a master's thesis-length article anyway.
• It is difficult for readers to navigate.
• The information they are looking for, that is, the information most salient to their interest in the topic, is buried in vast quantities of extraneous detail.

I am happy to do the work of trimming down the article myself. Input from other editors would also be welcome. Do we agree in principle that this is a good idea? Endymion.12 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The readable prose size of the actual text itself excluding references is under 8,000 words so it's currently okay per WP:SIZERULE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Exact: 44543 characters (6777 words) "readable prose size". Grimes2 15:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Excluding references, the prose is still 6,923 words long by my count. I think reduction is due given my reasoning above. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

i think it's fine, but it shouldn't be any longer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're going to cut anything, I would cut Jason_Arday#Possible_implications_for_academia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, though the first paragraph might be rescued and put somewhere else. Equally, do readers who visit this page really want to know about his childhood snooker exploits? Endymion.12 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, it's half this length in readable text, so there's no real issue here. I do not agree that it needs to be substantially 'trimmed'. Whynotlol2 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)