Talk:Republic (pressure group)

message: Non-notable.  What does this society do?  Does it have events, members? What is it?--Couter-revolutionary 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not being childish.  I am wondering if it does anything? Does it? You ought know...--Couter-revolutionary 20:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes and I'm head of the "Campaign to Make Counter-Revolutionary Wikipedia Head of State", is my organisation notable.  Clearly not.  What makes this one notable. --Couter-revolutionary 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: At the end of the day it is, of course, up to the given Admin. to take the decision, I have, however, seen articles fulfill those requirements be deleted.--Couter-revolutionary 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack!  NOPE - the Wiki community decides. Yikes. 50.111.31.194 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a topic of very significant consequence.  People are advocating the replacement of the British monarchy with a republic, talk that would have gotten them spedily into prison in the nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.  The issue of republic versus monarchy is one that stocked the conservative ancien regime reaction against liberalism in Britain and on the European continent throughout the nineteenth century.
It is rather remarkable that editors are hurling charges such as sock puppet.
This organization is a bona fide organization with dozens of supporters among political and cultural figures in British society. The BBC had given reference to it in a series of articles in 2003. Dogru144 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious article

message: This makes no sense: a republic that is linked with the United Kingdom. Dogru144 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Farcical, oxymoronic title

message: The very title (Unted Kingdom) as part of the article name, Republic (United Kingdom) is biased by its very nomenclature toward the monarchy, the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom is a state.  It is not a culture or people. Great Britain is the land over which it governs.  Great Britain is the place.  British is the appelation for the people.  No one, not even the most stalwart monarchists use the adjective United Kingdom for themselves.  Both Republic (United Kingdom) and Republic (Great Britain) are inappropriate.  There is no organization associated in name with either place.  Furthermore, nowhere in the homepage for the organization are either phrase uttered.  
If anything, one can scroll to the bottom and see the note that the organization is "Republic is a democratic organisation." Dogru144 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that depends on the country.99.152.117.108 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New, non-POV title

message: Look up nation; study national identity and other factors of nation-ness; by contrast, look up state.  Indeed, see what the former article says re the UK and state.
The UK a nation?  Try telling that to many Scots.
Clearly, you have no expertise on the subject if you are calling the political entity a state.  Keep them separate.
Again, did they make any mention of the kingdom as their place of being? No.
Desist from personal attacks.
Dogru144 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a nation; a state

message: The number 3000 is presented in the article as being something rather significant, yet it sounds on the whole rather small for a large-scale petition (there were more people in my (much smaller, mind) home town opposed to the introduction of a particular shopping mart). Is this number on-par for such petitions in the UK? -Senori 04:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The petition 

message: "However, under the Human Rights Act 1998, the Law Lords have held that although the Treason Felony Act remains on the statute books, it was incompatible with the Human Rights Act."  This seems to exactly the opposite of what the House of Lords in fact said, which was that they refused to send the case back to the high court for a declaration that the ban breached human rights law.  Instead they said that there was no prospect of anybody being prosecuted for advocating moving to a republic by peaceful means; nobody had been prosecuted for over 100 years; nobody had avoided advocating republicanism as a result of the Act; and the Guardian had wasted time and money by even bringing the case in the first place.   --Rumping (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Lords

message: :Image:Republic UK.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Republic UK.PNG

message: I see Paul Merton is listed as a supporter here, but Republic UK do not list him as a supporter. Is there any evidence that he has specifically lent his support to this particular organisation (as opposed to republicanism in general, his support for which indeed I cannot find evidence on the internet)? (92.8.34.21 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporters

message: I will delete the history section if good sources cannot be provided for all the information in there. Cheers SaintDaveUK (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been months and nobody has provided sources for the History section. As such, I have deleted it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaintDaveUK (talk • contribs) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bevo74 has posted a citation for the first paragraph regarding the formation of Republic. The others (which remain deleted) still need citation if they are to be included in the article. Cheerss SaintDaveUK (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History needs sources 

message: Please see my proposal at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_2#English_republicansAusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Category merge proposal