This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Freedom of speech This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

As this article was copied from a section within the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article, the list selection criteria have been inherited from there. These seem to be:

• The person already has an article written about them, thus meeting the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list (ie: that they advocate republicanism in the United Kingdom) is established by reliable sources.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. It makes sense to divide the list into those living and deceased, which wasn’t the case before. TrottieTrue (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are further names for both lists at Category:British republicans. However, these need referencing. If someone else wishes to add them, please do. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the ones that I can from these categories. Not all could be verified. --TrottieTrue (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Oliver Cromwell among the dead ones? Seadowns (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Not a clear consensus out there: what I've found suggests that he wasn't actually a republican himself.--TrottieTrue (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss has previously been removed from this list due to an inadequate source; however, this link is better. Despite this, I hesitate to add her name, because she did not state her support for republicanism when she was notable - she was only a political activist at the time. So adding "Liz Truss, Conservative MP and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" would be a tad inaccurate. For this reason, I would also hesitate to add Keir Starmer, who has previously advocated republicanism (but not whilst a Labour MP, or Leader of the Labour Party). The list could easily include those who have also disavowed republicanism, because advocating a position at some point doesn't mean that the person always maintains it. So maybe we should only add people who have advocated republicanism whilst they had the relevant bio description/role next to their name? Liz Truss, therefore, wouldn't be relevant as " political activist/president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats/member of the national executive committee of Liberal Democrat Youth and Students (LDYS)". Any thoughts? TrottieTrue (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The whole list is subject to this phenomenon, that advocating a position at some point doesn't mean that the person always maintains it. Truss and Starmer may be provably opposed to republicanism, but the thinness of sources used means that there are likely many people listed who no longer favour a republic, and may even not have had this new preference expressed in a reliable source. The lead says: This is a list of individuals and groups who advocate, or have advocated, republicanism in the United Kingdom. If we include Daniel Radcliffe's off-the-cuff remark to a journalist in a 2009 interview without context then Truss and Starmer would fit too. Better would be to include a short amount of context for each entry. Otherwise we have simplification possibly to the point of BLP violations. — Bilorv (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s true that advocating a position once doesn’t mean you maintain it, so we could have a criteria for the list whereby those who have renounced their position can be removed, or have a note added to clarify this. I’m also not opposed to having more stringent criteria for additions: the need for a person to have used the word “republic” or “republican”, rather than simply calling for the monarchy to be abolished. It’s a bit like lists of endorsements for political candidates, when we end up with rather thin sources which aren’t explicit in stating said person’s support. I think adding context for each entry would make the article too long - however, references with quotes included, where relevant, should be encouraged. I’ve tried to use these in some of my newer additions. The difference with Daniel Radcliffe is that unlike Truss or Starmer, he was notable when he advocated republicanism - and having looked at the source, he was quite explicit and emphatic in his comment.—TrottieTrue (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]