User talk:Timeshift9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. If you leave a message here, I will most likely reply here.

3,800 watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....


I think the ADB has mangled two different facts together there: he was Chief Secretary until the 1933 election (8 April), and resigned from the PLP to sit as Independent Labor sometime before the remerger of the Labor parties in 1934. He was definitely re-elected for the PLP on 8 April, so the date quoted (18 April) would, if correct, mean he quit the party literally ten days into a nine-year term!

Trove doesn't list anything remotely interesting for Whitford in April 1933 besides his re-election, so my assumption is that 18 April refers to the return of the writs, and they haven't done their homework about the party he ran with in 1933. I would love to know when he actually did quit the PLP though, because I'm a terrible pedant about dates and it annoys me that I haven't pinned it down. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that period of SA politics. But I suppose as long as nobody knows definitely otherwise, and we have only source about this and says ind from 1933, we should go with that. It would be surprising to quit a party 10 days in to a 9 year term but certainly plausible. Timeshift (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no press coverage from the time to support that, though. The ADB says "Backed by the Liberal Federation, he and like-minded colleagues held office as the Parliamentary Labor Party under L. L. Hill and R. S. Richards until 18 April 1933. Thereafter Whitford was an Independent Labor member, as well as a commercial traveller." That he held office as Chief Secretary until 18 April 1933 is unquestionably true, but there's no evidence to support resigning from the PLP on that date. It may be that "thereafter" didn't mean immediately thereafter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have to disagree. The wording IMHO definitely indicates immediately thereafter, which could be interpreted as shortly thereafter, but certainly not 8+ months thereafter. It's just too long-a time period for that sort of wording. Timeshift (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The only specific sources referring to Whitford as distancing himself from Labor come from a spate of media coverage in March 1934. Noticeably, that refers to Whitford as having been in Labor in the present tense, and announces that he was as of that time now an "individualist". I think that's a lot clearer than the ambiguous mention in the ADB, which if correct managed to be completely unreported (as opposed to the torrent of coverage of Whitford's March 1934 comments). The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bah. I hate 1930s SA state politics. I do despise that so infinitely little is published on this subject. It's not as if recorded history started in the 1940s. Timeshift (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm fascinated by this period, but I suspect the bad media coverage is just because Labor blew itself apart so spectacularly. Like, I struggle to think of many times in Australian history when there have been four Labor Parties sitting in the same chamber, and it's a such a chaotic period that I think a lot of modern historians have just thrown up their hands and found it easier to just pretend everyone was always straight Labor.
It's interesting that I've had far more trouble tracing what happened to the PLP members in 1931, whereas the Nationals from 1917 and the Langites from 1931 are both subjects I could write a GA-length article with relative ease. It basically took Trove developing to its present depth of content for me to even work out who the heck went where in the OLP/PLP part of the 1931 split. The period newspaper sources are very clear that the PLP was an actual party; they just don't seem to be nearly as concerned with its inner workings as they were with either the Nationals or the Langites. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
But that's the thing, a lot of sources don't just pretend everyone is straight Labor. There are bios and articles around that do say such and such an MP was part of a splinter group, but lack more detail, even basic detail such as years. One source that did get very lazy but should be the last to do so, is the former members section. And what's worse is for some MP affiliations they are completely wrong. The official source is a joke. It's disgraceful. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've still got so much to do with the SA electorate articles, it'll be a while before I get to the parties! Although, if MPs sat as members of those pre-Lib Union parties then it would be great to get some designations for that period in there. As you say above, no hope with the SA Parliament site, the most hopeless of all the state parliamentary websites when it comes to member biography (WA excepted, since it just doesn't try before about 1996). Frickeg (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm slowly working my way back through the member lists, and I am very carefully checking everything as I go along: I'm on the 1915-18 LA at the moment, but I'm going to keep working back until the 1890s so will hopefully be able to catch members of the pre-Lib Union parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Considering how fluid MP affiliations were with pre-Lib Union parties, I wish you luck but I don't expect a lot! A note for readers of this page, PS: National Defence League and Farmers and Producers Political Union articles finally created. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Electorate Results[edit]

Thanks. And yes, I plan on doing that, but I've got these NT election result books for only a limited time so NT 1990 and 1987 are my next priorities. But with that in mind, I'll move on with SA after that. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Langites[edit]

The short version to this story is that Doug Bardolph was a bit of a Langite Clive Palmer, and basically everyone who got elected with him lost their desire to continue to work with him before very long. There were two other splinter parties: a short-lived one around Martin Collaton before he just rejoined Labor prior to the 1933 election, and a slightly longer-lived one after it which called itself (in at least the source I was looking at when I wrote that page) "SA Lang Labor Party" (as opposed to the original, which was just called the Lang Labor Party), which was also referred to by its members, Dale and Howard. I understand the confusion, though - it's not as if they were terribly creative with naming! So in that edit - the link is right, the piping is not.

The Collaton Langites are probably not independently notable of Collaton, and while I'll go over the sources again at some point whatever they called themselves (which I can't remember off the top of my head) should probably redirect to him. The Dale-Howard Langites I think are independently notable and are a future project. I'm particularly interested in SA stuff at the moment so it's fairly high on my list but it's also exam month so you probably won't see much from me in the next fortnight! The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them starting out there at least, though it needs to distinguish that they were indeed separate parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I just removed the "SA" from the 1933 election article - all we need is Lang Labor, piped to the state article. The main Lang Labor Party in SA wasn't a split from the NSW Langites, but "SA Lang Labor" is the name the Dale-Howard Langites were using when they split from the main LLP after the 1933 election - does that make sense? The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's correct to call Thompson "Protestant Labor", as most of the sources seem to refer to him with that label, and this article links him to the interstate mob, although a lot of the sources seem to otherwise treat him as an independent. It'd be nice to see our Protestant Labor Party article get a bit more solidly referenced than it is at present around what the various Protestant Labor people had to do with each other - A Pox On Both Your Houses is an amazingly crap source for something Jaensch put his name to. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Early common names[edit]

Hey, one little thing I've picked up in your fixing things up here and there is that you seem to have a preference for "Firstname Lastname" naming of early politicians. I kinda feel responsible for this since I think I was one of the people who started that convention that back in the day, but the more widely-read I've gotten on pre-1930s politics the more I think it's often wrong for that era. I think we've got a lot of articles at "Firstname Lastname" when basically every source we could cite uses either "Firstname Middlename Lastname" or their initials and last name: in those cases, I don't think we're using their common name, and I think we're using a naming system that is kind of our own arbitrary invention. Thoughts? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too fussed either way. The reason I changed to John Duncan in the first place was because many articles linked to John James Duncan which redirects to a US politician. If you want to add middle names, by all means go ahead, but as far as i'm concerned as long as it links to the correct article, i'll use firstname lastname as the display name unless a number of editors tell me not to. It's easier. Timeshift (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blah. Stopping there. Don't suppose you want to pick up where i left off? Best way to find out is type their name and "party names" with the " in to google and see what you find. Add to their bio article and in the MLC list. I have no doubt 1897 through 1915 has more affiliations i've missed and/or not available online. 1891 to 1897 still need doing. Timeshift (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm completely happy to pick up where you left off, and it's the top priority on my list (and I just deferred my exams so I basically have the rest of June to sit around and chill out on Wikipedia), but would you be able to include specific sources for the non-Labor affiliations you've listed pre-1910?
Every election after 1910 has party affiliation clearly listed in the newspapers alongside the election results, and so is really easy to do. Any election before that doesn't, and so clearly demonstrating that they actually were a member of a parliamentary party is going to be a bit of a cow. I am pedantic and thorough enough to go do this where possible, but it would be a godsend if you'd be able to post sources for the ones you've done so it can be checked off easily. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
At the time I added/ref'd party affiliation in every MP's article that I altered in the MP lists. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a problem I'd like your opinion on. I've gotten back to the 1910-12 parliament, and I'm damned if I know how to address the conservative party affiliations in that parliament prior to the Liberal Union merger in light of discovering that they ran with this mess of a semi-coalition. If they'd actually run a united ticket I was just going to list them as "Liberal" and footnote that they'd run a united "Liberal" ticket and it was an informal coalition until a few months after the election, but the LDU running independently in nearly a quarter of seats (and winning two) kinda buggers that up. @Frickeg:, any ideas either? The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My preference here would be to list them all with their pre-1910 affiliation (if known) and then treat the Liberal Union as starting after the election - so people would be "LDU/Liberal", "Farmers/Liberal", etc. I imagine, for the joint candidates, it should be discoverable which of the three groups they represented first. It seems to me from that register article that they were jointly endorsing candidates for electorates, without those candidates necessarily being members of all three groups (a bit like the unionists often do in Northern Ireland today). Frickeg (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways of going about it that I've seen people do on here. The first and the most accurate is to find the official gazettal or legislation back in a Government Gazette from the dawn of time and to try to map those lines on to some kind of modern geography. I've seen a few more dedicated editors do this and it is the best solution by far. But while the early 1900s didn't have Antony Green, they did have some coverage of where districts actually stood, and if you dig around Trove you can often get some idea: i.e. when I wrote electoral district of Bulla and Dalhousie I was able to at least name the key towns since neither "Bulla" or "Dalhousie" means anything to anyone in a modern context. In the case of South Australia, where the local party branches were meeting is probably the easiest way of getting a general vibe for the area covered, since those meetings were reported on in detail all the time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not impossible - could be in Trove (especially if you hit on the rough time that a reconstitution of districts happened), could be in the State Archives (probably would, if you could find it), or if you can find the exact boundary lines I'm sure some helpful soul on here with a penchant for mapping could sort you out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you added the Labor designations to the MPs for the 1906-1910 list. My plan is to create the lists with vacant party columns all the way back to the last missing list in 1884 and then to go back and meticulously cross-check affiliations, because I kept finding useful sources for earlier parliaments while researching later ones and then not being able to find them again. I left the Labor ones off as well as the conservatives because, while they're probably accurate, I want to catch cases like Bill Denny's couple of terms as an Independent Liberal in this decade amidst decades of Labor service (which I would have completely missed if that dude hadn't written a featured article on him). So many of the 1890s Labor people nationally wound up leaving due to early splits that I want to be really diligent about making sure that every election is correct. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to let anyone do what they need to to ensure all articles are both complete and accurate. Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

SA Legislative Council[edit]

I'm really not sure if I can do that. All that data might be a bit too much (having to do 32 tables, 1 for each count), and I'm not sure of a way to simplify it. Kirsdarke01 (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for that catch. I was a bit mental with insomnia when I had that burst of activity last night and it doesn't surprise me that I slipped up somewhere! I've checked all the others and they're fine, thankfully. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

National Defence League[edit]

I'm kinda struggling to work out at what point the NDL actually became a party in the sense that we understand it now, like, actually having members of parliament, as opposed to being like an employers' version of say the Australian Christian Lobby and just issuing endorsements of candidates they like.

I found the newspaper's list of candidates for the 1896 election which had people as either "NDL", "Labor" or none, and was working off that. But their relationship to candidates seems pretty murky: Paddy Glynn won by-elections in 1895 and 1897, and was strongly supported by the NDL both times, but in 1895 and 1897 sources make statements like, in the latter, "it should be explained none of the candidates were the direct nominees of the National League". This contrasts with Labor, for who it is always pretty clear who was and wasn't formally a ULP candidate. This might seem like I'm getting a bit finicky, but by this time the ULP had already had its first split and started expelling people and I can't work out at what point the NDL actually started having MPs who were theirs in the same sense.

I feel like I can probably work out the FPPU and the LDU from poring over the papers, because both (and at least the latter) seem to have been parties as we would understand them from the start. But the NDL is confusing the shit out of me. Any ideas? The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)