Talk:It's Time (Australian campaign)/Archives/2013

My Bit
Ok. I think of this article off to a good start. Feel free to correct me or change whatever you think could be improved. Bobby1011 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Graham Freudenberg?
The article mentions Whitlam's skills as an orator. Was his speechwriter at that time Graham Freudenberg (yet to get an article) - is it worth mentioning his role?--A Y  Arktos 23:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Do we have any references for Freudenberg's role during this period? A quote mightn't go astray if this is the case. He really should get an article of his own, anyway. Ambi 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Change
It was ultimately successful, as Labor picked up eight seats and won government for the first time since 1949.

Government was last won by labor in 1945. The United Australia Party won in 1949.

Bobby1011 22:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Exchange rates
Does anyone have a reference for the exchange rates? They sound surprisingly high. I can't fdind any online reference that old. --Scott Davis Talk 11:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The exchange rates are referenced in the external link to "Hopes were high..."

Bobby1011 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

rewrite
Joestella's rewrite seems more to be a whitewash mass-deleting of content from the article, I would appreciate an explanation/justification/discussion of the rewrite here or it will just be reverted. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 00:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whitewash? No. Cleanup? Yes. This article used to be more about Whitlam and the 1972 election, which have their own articles. In addition, the text reflected a heavy pro-Whitlam bias. It's time was a slogan and a jingle - not a policy platform, not an election result. Joestella 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're questioning an article about a Labor slogan being too pro-Labor? don't make me laugh, I will revert and if you want to get into an edit war over it I will take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. WikiTownsvillian 13:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about the 1972 election, and it isn't an article about Whitlam. You'd be looking for Australian federal election, 1972 or Gough Whitlam if that's what you were after. Rather, this article is exactly what it says - an article about the "It's Time" Labor campaign in that election, arguably the most famous political campaign, and one of the more successful in Australian political history. To try to rewrite it as something else is, well, pretty ludicrous. To turn it into a stub about a "slogan" just shows that the author had a pretty bad grasp of history. Rebecca 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also can we keep in mind that a well written article should be able to be read on its own without having to read background in other articles. An article about a Labor campaign can hardly be read by someone new to the subject without significant reference to the leader of the campaign and the election the campaign was a part of; this would make the article incomplete even with reference to other articles. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Joe thinks the article should be about the campaign at all. As I said, though, this makes absolutely no sense. Rebecca 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right. It's my fault for getting sucked into this shit again. "It's time" was a campaign in the sense of an advertising campaign, not in the sense of an election campaign. It is a subtle but important distinction. Joestella 13:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was the name of the Labor campaign at the 1972 election. A sensible article under this name would, surprise of surprises, write about the Labor campaign. Calling it a "slogan" simply makes it look like your knowledge of history is pretty flawed. Rebecca 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I always think of It's Time as both an election advertising campaign and a slogan. I never thought of it as a policy platform. I'd like to see an article more about the advertising campaign itself, how it came about, who was involved etc. The current article doesn't even mention Paul Jones. --Lester2 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest it is more than an advertising campaign although like any campaign that was a big part of it, for example Whitlam's famous It's Time speeches, as always the political advertising was just supportive of the campaign as a whole, the question is was the campaign as a whole called It's Time, or even has it commonly come to be known by that name? I would think yes, but perhaps Orderinchaos's books will be able to help us out here.  WikiTownsvillian 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get on our high horses
In general election campaigns - the political context, the leaders, the policies and the results - are covered in the election and election campaign articles. "It's time", more so than "Leadership" or "For all of us" or whatever, is a highly memorable campaign slogan that adorned what is often considered to be Australia's first modern political advertising campaign. "It's time" was not the name of Labor's platform.

The old article may have been long, but its flaws were numerous:


 * It contained inaccurate statements: "This was the first time Labor had been in government since it lost the 1949 election to the Liberal Party" (this is only true at a federal level); "The campaign concentrated heavily on the mistakes made by the prime minister of the day, William McMahon" (It's time was the message of the positive rather than the negative ads).


 * It was biased: "William McMahon, was indecisive, had made major mistakes"; "McMahon had only come into the Prime Ministership through the resignation of his predecessor"


 * It makes odd-sounding, unsubstantiated claims: "and there was wide public support in Australia to increase sanctions against the white government there, particularly with respect to their sports teams"

Links between the campaign and the election result need to be treated more carefully. One could argue that Whitlam's radical agenda was a mitigating factor in the size of his win, and that what swung voters was the poor showing by the coalition parties. 1972 was no landslide. The sentence beginning "The 1972 election was the first ALP victory since 1946. Its success is usually attributed to both the It's Time campaign..." embodies the poor grammar, poor referencing, and poor research of the article as it stood.

Finally, telling us what happened "On [Whitlam's] first day in office as Prime Minister of Australia" is well outside the scope of the article.

WikiTownsvillian, no-one cares how long the article was before. The issue is quality. And Rebecca, it seems your understanding of WP:CIVIL has advanced not one iota since you last attacked something I wrote here. I think the case for a rewrite was clear enough. Please ensure your next edits are constructive. Joestella 14:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The original article was far superior to the ludicrous stub that replaced it, since it actually covered the topic, as to a left-field misinterpretation of it. I don't doubt that some things in the article may need cleaning up, but wiping the lot and replacing it with an incompetent stub on the basis of the things you've cited above strikes me as overkill. Rebecca 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So much anger, Rebecca. Take a break and cool off. The bulk of the old article is a 1972 Labor policy document. (Notable, but best kept for the Whitlam, ALP and 1972 election articles) As I have made clear, "It's time" was not the name of Labor's platform. This article is about a memorable political advertising slogan and the campaign of TVCs and so on developed to go with it. Joestella 14:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the name of their platform, but it was the name of their campaign. This article should cover the campaign in detail - the speech, the advertising, a more comprehensive and focused history, and some coverage of the reforming policies the party was pushing, which was a pretty important part of that campaign. Your stub has improved from being completely silly, but it's still only showing a small part of the picture. Rebecca 14:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no references to support your contention that Labor's bid for office had a name (as distinct from a slogan), you can't just keep posting it. And stop using words like "piffle" or questioning my grasp of the subject. Joestella 14:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It was, in all practicality, the name of their campaign, and the logical title for an article on that campaign. I'm questioning your grasp of the subject because trying to write an article about it purely as a "political slogan", as you initially tried to do, is right out of left field, and delving into crank territory. Rebecca 14:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal point: searching for "It's Time campaign" on Google returns 5,200 hits. Searching for "It's Time slogan" returns 143 hits. "It's Time" was a campaign, not a slogan. Rebecca 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * bec, no other political campaign gets its own article. Whitlam's 1972 campaign wasn't the most successful (2.5% swing), his policies not the most radical or popular or successful either. "It's time" is a notable phrase, a notable slogan, a notable speech, a notable ad, a notable song. put your alp campaign article on Australian federal election, 1972, next to whatever the liberals proposed that year. ChampagneComedy 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

the google results mean nothing. "it's time" actually comes up a lot in english, especially on the campaign trail. ChampagneComedy 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone with access to a library should grab the Aust Journal of Politics and History 18(3):402-449 (Dec 72) and 19(1):63-112 (Apr 73), would probably sort out the arguments once and for all, and add some reliable sourcing from an independent and respected source to the article. If it can wait a week I'd be happy to do the looking up. As for notability, what political campaign by any party gets this much attention and immediate recognition 35 years after the fact? In some ways it speaks to the expectations it failed to answer (leading in part to the 1975 situation) as well as to the obvious mood of voters towards the McMahon Coalition government. Pretty hard for those of us now to imagine Vietnam War politics and prime ministers who don't last 8, 8, 5 or 13 years. Orderinchaos 18:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * p.240 of Grattan, Michelle (ed.), "Australian Prime Ministers", New Holland Publishers, Frenchs Forest (NSW), 2000, ISBN 1-86436-671-0, shows a picture of Whitlam speaking behind a poster with "It's time." on it, credited to Fairfax Photo Library, with the caption reading in part: "...with a well-orchestrated "It's Time" campaign". (As an aside, the photos of Keating on p332 and Howard on p335 are hilarious, as is the then-Speaker's comments on Whitlam and Snedden's rivalry on p.341: "...they were saying gah gah and goof goof and all this business across the table at one another, like two children at times." Orderinchaos 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While my eyesight isn't the best and I was skim reading (50+ pages in 3 minutes!), I didn't see a reference to the slogan (or to any slogan) in the APC. However, its title bar mentioned another article in the AJPH (around about p.11 of 19(1)) which talks in more detail about the campaign and the significance of the Labor win, so that may answer the question. Found some hilarious stuff in that one too, including something about a preselected candidate for Hotham called Johnston who was actually a fugitive from the law (from reading between the lines, a conscientious objector) and other random hilarity surrounding the campaign. Orderinchaos 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Demeaning subsection: The title of this section Let's not get on our high horses is demeaning from the start, and makes it impossible to make a meaningful comment underneath it.Lester2 21:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
I have seen the posters from the campaign, or at least photos of them. Although they looked something like the image that was on the article, it isn't an accurate depiction. For one thing, it wasn't autographed by someone in the corner. The font and the colours are wrong. Joestella 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Name
you have actually seen stuff from this campaign, right? the time was never capitalised. ChampagneComedy 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of the more blatantly disruptive episodes I've ever witnessed on Wikipedia. Irrespective of the correct capitalisation, to retitle an article already under dispute without discussion and to then engage in a move war is exceedingly inappropriate. More of this behaviour, and you'll have overstayed your welcome.--cj | talk 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Am i on a different planet?! Does accuracy not have some sort of privileged status here?! ChampagneComedy 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. The issue is your little regard for etiquette or even common sense.--cj | talk 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * care to upbraid anyone else involved for their lack of etiquette? i didn't think so. ChampagneComedy 15:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * care to name a reason why, despite wiki politics being edited by both the left and the right, only descends in to turmoil when you/JS are around? i didn't think so. Timeshift 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you got me, timeshift9. joe and i are the source of all conflicts on oz politics pages. wherever there is a dispute on a page, it's always me and him. we have thousands of logins and hundreds of separate net connections, which is how we got away with it for so long. now you've solved everything with yet another one of your snide comments. have a barnstar, mate. better yet, have a million barnstars. ChampagneComedy 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said all disputes on oz politics pages are either you or him - ever. What I said was that oz politics seems to descend in to turmoil when you/JS are around. And I invite any regular oz politics contributor to tell me otherwise. Timeshift 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: ChampagneComedy has been indefinitely block as a sockpuppet of Joestella. Recurring dreams 01:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference format
My personal opinion is that a controversial political article like this (or any other) should carry inline references so everyone can see where the information came from. Also, there is currently an external link placed inline which launches a Real format video from an external site. I think it should be removed, as the reader should get some prior indication that they're clicking on a video.--Lester2 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation in article name - lower case "t"
Notwithstanding the editorial disputes above in which I have not been involved, the slogan was not capitalised as is currently the case with the article name. I blieve the article name should be corrected. There is an image of a poster from the period with lower case "t". Other images of the campaign will all have a lower case "t"- try googling images - eg the image of Whitlam at. Cecil Edwards book Labor Pains refers to the slogan with a lower case "t" on page 8 and 9, though on page 10 in a draft advertisement for the Liberal party a cpital "T" was used. User:Orderinchaos suggests with this page move that his naming is as per "The Age, SMH, AAP, whitlam.org, ABC and News Ltd."

At http://www.whitlam.org/whitlam/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=56 see the merchandise all has a lower case "t". I feel quite strongly (but probably only strongly enough to put my point here once) that the capitalisation should reflect the slogan as it was marketed at the time, not how it is reproduced in secondary or more derivative sources.

I note that Whitlams' own book The Whitlam Government refers on page one to the slogan with a capital "T". It is an argument the other way but I don't think it overrides the actual images from the campaign - the book was published in 1985 - well after the event. Edwards' book mentioned above was published in 1974 - closer to the period. --Golden Wattle talk 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with Golden Wattle there. Also see the picture of Whitlam in the montage on the Pollbludger banner: . Recurring dreams 05:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the campaign has a title, much like a book or movie has a title, and that's what we're referring to. cf. The "It's Time" campaign vs the slogan, "It's time." Orderinchaos 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the election campaign had a title as such. It would have been the 1972 Federal Election Campaign or whatever.  I have seen no evidence to support this assertion - can you cite a source please to support the assertion that the election campign, not the advertising campaign was so titled?  There was a slogan that came to be identified with the campaign.  I have no difficulty with the election campaign being identified with the slogan, however, I think it is original research to suggest that the campaign had a title.  Happy to be proved wrong.  I would like to see reliable sources close to the period to support the campaign title assertion - not later views.  If you are relying on later views to title the campaign, is that correct?  Bit like calling the bushranger Dan Morgan "Mad Dog Morgan" something he wasn't known as until the 1970s. --Golden Wattle  talk 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Whitlam and Freudenberg talk about it in terms of a campaign with the title "It's Time". See Hocking et al (2003), "It's time again: Whitlam and modern Labor", Melbourne: Circa, p.69-70 (this part of it written by Freudenberg). Orderinchaos 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)