Talk:Jason Arday

Accusations of misconduct

It would be worthwhile to wait and see if these accusations find their way into reputable sources. https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge Reagle (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I gather reputable sources are trying very hard to publish something about it, but UK libel laws are having a chilling effect. So it may take time. ~2026-41071-38 (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if and when they do, I'm sure it will be added. However, that blog is not a reputable source, regardless of how thorough it seems to be regarding these particular allegations, and so it cannot be added yet. Whynotlol2 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Such allegations are now appearing in media such as Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail.

At least two of his past articles have published 'corrections' that are concerned with appropriate citation practices and acknowledging other work, which was not done in the original versions:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/12/12/672

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2024.2350203

It is quite rare for academics to have corrections of this kind, let alone two. The former is quite extensive, and is described as being made "to increase the clarity of citation sources". ~2026-29277-89 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I find it a bit surprising that neither in the article nor here is the fact mentioned that this has been investigated by both Cambridge (where he is on faculty) and Liverpool John Moores University (where he got his PhD) and both have cleared him. Seems like a relevant fact that can be found, for example, in The Telegraph article. ~2026-41234-55 (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As Cofnas notes, it is odd that Arday was allowed to make "corrections" to his articles by providing citations to authors he had plagiarised and previously not cited. cagliost (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

• Times
• Telegraph
• Daily Mail

It's a bit odd to say Liverpool have "cleared" him given Nathan Cofnas only published his plagiarism analysis on 21 July 2026. cagliost (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

According to the Telegraph, Liverpool John Moores investigated Arday's PhD in September 2025 and did nothing. cagliost (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It is important context that Cofnas himself appears to have been dismissed from Cambridge for having a history of racist rhetoric and so he might have an axe to grind . Chris Rufo targeted Claudine Gay at Harvard using very similar accusations. The campaign seems to be to target black scholars, accuse them of plagiarism on an obscure blog, and hope the mainstream media picks up on it. I think we need to be very careful here to not violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It is possible (and likely) Cofnas is just recycling old claims that have already been investigated. At minimum, we should clarify that in the Telegraph article it is mentioned that "Allegations of plagiarism regarding his thesis and journal publications have been thoroughly investigated by the relevant institution and the journals in question. Professor Arday has been cleared by those investigations of any wrongdoing." - seems like important context. ∞ HardScience (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. This is crucial context that has, in my opinion, been selectively left out of the Wikipedia article. ~2026-41234-55 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

How is it relevant? Claims stand or fall on their own merits, not on the merits of those who make them. Are the passages accurate as quoted, or aren't they? Phanatic (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia's job to adjudicate. It should be recorded because it's part of the broader story, even if ultimately the allegations bear out. ~2026-41737-38 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed and they are not, they are missing crucial context ∞ HardScience (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

600 miles in 6 days

https://web.archive.org/web/20251111231032/https://www.greenbelt.org.uk/artists/jason-arday/ He ran 600 miles in 6 days. Despite millions having run marathons, he's accomplished something probably less than 10 people in the world ever have, so it's worth including. ~2026-40819-70 (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Inadequate source. Probably another lie. cagliost (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

There is literally no public record anywhere of this run other than when he has said it himself in an interview, or put it in a press release, which means it’s not publishable on Wikipedia. ~2026-41071-38 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

How about now? The Telegraph is public record, right?

https://archive.ph/2026.07.29-143233/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/29/cambridge-diversity-poster-boy-fresh-row-marathon/ Phanatic (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Good Law Project Petition

@cagliost, just to note that this petition seems highly relevant as it has over 10,000 signatories, including from many notable individuals. However, I also see that the Good Law Project is an advocacy organization so it probably shouldn't be included unless there's reliable secondary coverage, which there is, it was covered by The Voice, which is considered "mostly factual" by independent news raters. I'm not married to the wording at all but before wholesale deletions are implemented it would be good to discuss this further here if you have issues with the sourcing. Thanks ∞ HardScience (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You should not link directly to the Good Law Project, which is a primary source. I have replaced the link with a Telegraph article which covers it.

The "Good Law Project" is basically a televangelism organisation designed to extract money from its gullible supporters, with misleading claims about their (poor) legal success rate. cagliost (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

OK didn't know that, thanks! Looks good ∞ HardScience (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)