Talk:Implied freedom of political communication: Difference between revisions

Line 7: Line 7:

}}

{{old move|date=5 December 2025|from=Freedom of political communication|destination=Implied freedom of political communication|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1327406910#Requested move 5 December 2025}}

==Wiki Education assignment: Academic Writing II 2pm==

Line 15: Line 17:

== Requested move 5 December 2025 ==

{{requested move/dated|Implied freedom of political communication}}

:”The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style=”color: var(–color-error, red);”>”’Please do not modify it.”'</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] ”’after”’ discussing it on the closer’s talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.”

The result of the move request was: ”’moved.”’ <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Jeffrey34555|Jeffrey34555]] ([[User talk:Jeffrey34555|talk]]) 08:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

—-

[[:Freedom of political communication]] → {{no redirect|Implied freedom of political communication}} – Currently, the title sounds like this convention could apply to any worldwide jurisdiction but is only applicable to [[Constitution of Australia|Australia’s Constitution]] which makes it unclear. I think this proposal is a more suitable title for an article of this sort because it is what [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] refer to the precedent as. When I search “Freedom of political communication”, most of the results I get say “implied” in them which tells me that an implication is a very important part of this constitutional understanding. As stated in [[WP:UCRN]], we should work off what reliable sources state the subject’s name is recognised as most commonly. I would also suggest using the title “Implied right to political communication” but more sources seem to state in their heading a “freedom” rather than a “right”. [[User:Qwerty123M|Qwerty123M]] ([[User talk:Qwerty123M|talk]]) 01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC) <small>— ””’Relisting.””’ Thanks, [[User:1isall|<span style=”color:cyan; background-color:navy;”>1isall</span>]] (he/him) ([[User talk:1isall|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/1isall|contribs]]) 02:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)</small>

*”’Support”’. “Implied” is usually included in the sources I’ve seen (both news and academic). This also serves the useful purpose of distinguishing the concept in Australian constitutional law from the more general concept. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:ITBF|<span style=”background-color:wheat;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”><span style=color:olivedrab>I</span> <span style=color:indianred>T</span> <span style=color:darkgoldenrod>B</span> <span style=color:darksalmon>F</span></span>]] <span style=”background-color:mistyrose;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”>[[User talk:ITBF|📢]]</span></span> 05:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

<div style=”padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em”>The discussion above is closed. <b style=”color: var(–color-error, red);”>Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!– from [[Template:Archive bottom]] –>

</div><div style=”clear:both;” class=></div>

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2024 and 13 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheMostEver (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by TheMostEver (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer’s talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of political communication → Implied freedom of political communication – Currently, the title sounds like this convention could apply to any worldwide jurisdiction but is only applicable to Australia’s Constitution which makes it unclear. I think this proposal is a more suitable title for an article of this sort because it is what reliable sources refer to the precedent as. When I search “Freedom of political communication”, most of the results I get say “implied” in them which tells me that an implication is a very important part of this constitutional understanding. As stated in WP:UCRN, we should work off what reliable sources state the subject’s name is recognised as most commonly. I would also suggest using the title “Implied right to political communication” but more sources seem to state in their heading a “freedom” rather than a “right”. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. “Implied” is usually included in the sources I’ve seen (both news and academic). This also serves the useful purpose of distinguishing the concept in Australian constitutional law from the more general concept. I T B F 📢 05:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply