Talk:The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019

Lead section: purpose of the report

Without citation to a source or summarising anything in the body of the article, the Lead states that the report was written "in response" to the EHRC investigation. While true, the statement fails to indicate that the original intention seems to have been to include the report in the submissions to the EHRC. According to Tom Rayner's 12 April 2020 article, Labour antisemitism investigation will not be sent to equality commission, on Sky News: "Those involved in compiling the huge dossier insist it was intended to provide additional context to the equalities watchdog and supplement the party's main submissions to the investigation into institutional antisemitic racism."     ←   ZScarpia   03:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

In this video, posted on his Twitter feed, John McDonnell says that the report was prepared in response to a request from the EHRC for copies of internal communications.     ←   ZScarpia   22:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a copy of the report, named Labour-Antisemitism-Report.pdf, on cryptome.org website. On the purpose of the report, the Executive Summary at the beginning says: "This report is a result of the in-depth and extensive investigatory work which the Party has undertaken to comprehensively respond to the Commission’s investigation, and aims to provide a full and thorough account of the evolution of the Party’s disciplinary processes in relation to dealing with complaints of antisemitism. It sets out the evidence of what has happened, explains the evident shortcomings in the Party’s work, and assesses the improvements the Party has made in the last two years in particular."     ←   ZScarpia   01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Tom Rayner: Twitter post and Sky News article.

Tom Rayner tweeted about the leaked report on 11 April 2020. The following day, an article by him on the subject appeared on the Sky News website. I don't know what date the first Sky News report was broadcast.     ←   ZScarpia   18:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Over-use of Twitter

I've got to say, this article is a bit of a joke at the moment, sourced entirely to comments on Twitter (apart from the Sky News article). Surely editors can do better than this. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a platform for first-hand reporting, surely! Sionk (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I disagree. All the twitter posts are authentic and yeah. Haris920 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That is absolutely not Wikipedia's policy - it doesn't matter whether the posts are "authentic" or not. See WP:Twitter-EL. WelshDude2 (talk) 12:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Tweets by James Schneider which seem to have been overlooked somehow.     ←   ZScarpia   18:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

And was Schneider's take covered by secondary sources? We can use primary sources for straightforward factual claims only, no interpretation, which seems hard with a long and complex thread, plus there are BLP issues as Schneider is heavily referring to third parties for which we can't use self-published sources, so I don't think we should be touching this unless via secondary coverage. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have tacked a winky emoticon on to the end of my message. Though, by supplying a personal account of the failure to take action, even when pushed, there was a serious side to my message.     ←   ZScarpia   14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Failed Verifications

Regarding the failed verification notices on "The Independent, which saw the dossier in full, stated that the right-wing of the Labour Party weaponised claims of antisemitism—amongst other things—in an active attempt to undermine Corbyn and prevent Labour from winning the 2017 general election in the hope that a poor result would trigger a leadership contest to remove Corbyn as leader." and "There are marked statements about their dismay at Labour over-performing expectations during the campaign, and apparent disappointment with the increase in seats after the election." I've addeed quotes to the references section for the relevant sources showing both of these are in the sources used so I'll be removing the notices unless anyone has any objections. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Only some of the direct quotations appear in the sources cited, so I have added more specific citation needed tags for what remains uncited. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Starmer's reaction (if any) to the concerns of NEC members

"In response, 13 NEC members (one third of the NEC), including representatives from four trade unions (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, Fire Brigades Union, Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, and Unite the Union) wrote to Starmer, accusing his office of misleading them about how the party dealt with leaked WhatsApp messages by senior officials detailed in the report and accusing party officials of defending "racist, sexist and abusive" messages about colleagues, and "also directly prejudged the specific issues that Martin Forde's inquiry is considering ... and thereby undermines its independence".

While NEC members "called for an apology and retraction from Starmer", it is not clear if this ever happened. Can this question/issue be addressed? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.156 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Forde Report redirect

Forde Report currently redirects to a section of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Should it actually link here? Or perhaps to Martin Forde? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC) (Not to Martin Forde, which links to the wrong person; I've disambiguated the link here to Martin Forde (QC) for the moment which doesn't exist yet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC))

The 'Leaked Report'

Suggest that the title be changed to:

'The Leaked Report'. Also known as: The work of the Labour Party's Governance and Legal Unit in relation to antisemitism, 2014–2019

Also, as well as the need for more detail on The Forde Report, might there not be a section on The Labour Files?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.212 (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps if RSs gave it any weight, which they haven't so far. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)