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)

I think that's the allegation, that the clearance wasn't done properly. It seems he just put the dissertation into a common program for checking them and found 43 instances of plagiarism. Now it's possible one or two across an academics career, where he unconsciously read something and then repeated it while believing he thought of it. But 43? Even five or six have resulted in harsh punishments before. ~2026-35346-85 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 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)

How is this crucial context, this Cofnas person has no relationship with the subject of the Wikipedia article itself, he's suing a university. The analysis is also done by software so it carries no inherent bias, that would be crucial context. If the argument is that he "phrased" his coverage of the software output in some way, then make this clear sure, but this isn't crucial at all.

It is Wikipedias job to say "this analysis was done by software, not by Cofnas." ~2026-35346-85 (talk) ~2026-35346-85 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 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)

Separate Allegations of plagiarism and false biographical claims?

Given that both topics are receiving a lot of coverage, this section has become quite long. Would it make sense to separate them into two sections: Allegations of Plagiarism & Allegations of False Biographical Claims? DivisionChat (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2026

Split Allegations of plagiarism and false biographical claims into two sections.

A reasonable structure would be:

Allegations of plagiarism

- Nathan Cofnas's Substack post and subsequent Telegraph investigation.

- Examples from the PhD thesis.

- Retraction Watch's reporting on the cancelled Times Higher Education investigation.

- 2023 correction to the 2018 Social Sciences paper.

- Cambridge and Liverpool John Moores' statements.

- Opinions from David Sanders, David Harris and Robert Dingwall.

- Good Law Project open letter insofar as it specifically addresses plagiarism.

- Arday's response in The Times admitting errors but denying misconduct.

Allegations of false biographical claims

- 600-mile running claim.

- £5.5 million charity fundraising clarification.

- Pig's head and assault allegations, and The Guardian's reporting.

- Seven Up claim.

- University of Glasgow visiting professorship claim.

- WaterAid overseas projects claim.

- Any responses from Arday to these allegations.

The only material that doesn't fit neatly is the Good Law Project letter, because it characterizes both plagiarism allegations as false and the wider reporting as a politically motivated smear campaign. It could either:

- remain at the end of the plagiarism section (since it explicitly mentions plagiarism), or

- be moved into a short Public response section if the article grows. DivisionChat (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)