Talk:List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward Snowden banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.120.28 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown has since been allowed re-entry into the UK. He performed at wireless in summer 2022 and during his tour in 2023. 81.98.52.132 (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wilders[edit]

What about Geert Wilders?--Yo Dawg! What's Going On Today? (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's not on the list. It's not about people who are banned, it's about the list.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should he be moved down the article a section now that the ban on him has been lifted? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religions[edit]

is it necessary to put their religion in the table? Vexorg (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them were banned because of their expressed religious ideology (Fred Phelps, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I removed the entry for Samir Kuntar, since the reason why he's banned has nothing to do with him being Druze. AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back, it does not matter if they are banned because their hate stems from their religion or not. I don't think the shock jock hates Autistic kids because hes a jew, but it is important to show the "rainbow nation of bigotry" that has been banned by H.M.Gov. (Hypnosadist) 16:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Savage is not Jewish; if you read his page you will see he rejects religion while maintaining only his racial heritage. I also think this column should be removed, per Vexorg, as it is completely irrelevent and cannot easily be sourced.YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe its irrelevant, it shows (and has been commented on in RS's) that this power has not been used to target a specific community (ie Muslims). When i added the first religions i only added ones that had sources about it already on wikipedia on their articles (ie the Druze guy). Add all the fact tags you want, anything that can't be sourced in a reasonable time should go.(Hypnosadist) 17:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've placed the relevent tags. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the religion column. The bannings aren't specifically about religion. Vexorg (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to self revert, we were just discussing if this should be here are not, would you please wait until we are finished. (Hypnosadist) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough consensus not to revert. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? None of the individuals were banned as a result of their nationality either yet that information is included. I don't see how the objection to include religion stacks up. It offers an overview of those banned just as mentioning their nationalities does. Why is mentioning religion an issue if mentioning nationalities isn’t? 2writer (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because nationality is a tangible factor - we can easy find out that Guzofsky is an Israeli American by the fact he would hold citezenship of those two countries. Religion is by contrast fairly dubious here: the two Russians were noted as being Christian, yet no evidence was provided to substanciate that claim. Likewise, before the column was removed, Savage was listed as being Jewish and Atheist - neither claim is true. In brief, religion as a column was misleading and unfactual. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should scrap the table entirely however, and have each individual under a subheading with a brief description. Some of them, with Savage being one notable exception, don't merit a full article on notability. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If stated religions cannot be verified then obviously they should be removed. However that is not justification for removing the entire section as a fair number could reasonably be verified. Some nationalities have also been difficult to confirm. The justification for wholesale removal seems flawed. Although more relevant than that, or indeed the suggestion to include the reasons why they were banned, is the need to included information regarding the legislation, which makes such a ban possible.2writer (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"information regarding the legislation, which makes such a ban possible" I'm not sure there is specific legislation about this, none was mentioned by jacki to the house of commons in this statement http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm081028/wmstext/81028m0001.htm#0810285000
Non-EU nations have no RIGHT to come to the UK so she does not need a legal process to stop them entering. The statement says she is seeking amendments to "Immigration (European Economic Areas) Regulations 2006 to ensure that I personally may exclude EEA nationals and their family members" who do have a RIGHT to come to the UK under EU freedom of movement, so need some kind of legal due process to exclude them. (Hypnosadist) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the same thing. It would appear to be Home Office "unacceptable behaviour policy" and nothing more. 2writer (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "unacceptable behaviour policy" is just a codifying of what is not to be done in the UK, its the Home secretary not the list that has the power to deny entry. (Hypnosadist) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of pedantry it is the Home Secretary who decides. However this is done under the guise of the "unacceptable behavious policy", which of course is effectively created by the Home Secretary. 2writer (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table is fine and good for clarity, but look, if we're going to expand the columns of info on these people then surely it would be on topic to include a column briefly describing the reasons why they were banned, rather than their religion, favorite football team, etc ? Vexorg (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think some of them should be merged into this article -Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim is a perfect example of someone we know practically nothing about, and I can't see it being expanded any time soon. Maybe the table as it is now followed by headings and subheadings for each individual? YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel if these people are notable enough to be not only banned by the UK government but have their names publicly broadcast as such then they are notable enough to warrant their own article. I did search out and add some info on Nasr_Javed yesterday, and will try and expand some of the others when I get time. I don't think the size of the individual articles should influence this article, which is after all, just a list. Vexorg (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, see my below suggestion. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for having the religions;1) We are an encyclopedia and we should contain as much accurate information as possible. 2)Religion is part of the reason that some(but not all) of these people are banned. 3) To accurately present H.M.Gov's POV. (Hypnosadist) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the additions of the official reason for the persons banning, i no longer think it is needed to add the religions of these people. (Hypnosadist) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

This article is about a small group of people banned from entering the UK on very specific grounds who have not been convicted of crimes. Martha Stewart is banned from the UK because shes a lair, Snoop Dog because he got in a fight in Heathrow airport. Also what is important is this "naming and shaming" is new in British immigration policy. People would think that only 22 people are banned from entering the UK when it is tens of thousands. I just can't think of the right name for this article. (Hypnosadist) 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about Martha Stewart? Please remember WP:NPOV with regard to the British government, but you do have a point in that other less prominant people are almost certainly banned. Not brilliant, but how about these: Home Office list of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom; 2009 list of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom; Publically available list of individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom? Anyone got a better idea? YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Martha Stewart; Martha Helen Stewart (née Kostyra; August 3, 1941) is an American business magnate, television host, author and magazine publisher. As founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, she has gained success through a variety of business ventures, encompassing publishing, broadcasting, and merchandising. Stewart's syndicated talk show, Martha, is broadcast throughout the world, she has written numerous bestselling books, and she is the publisher of the Martha Stewart Living magazine.

In 2001, Stewart was named the third most powerful woman in America by Ladies Home Journal. In 2004, she was convicted of lying to investigators about a stock sale and served five months in prison. Stewart began a strong comeback campaign in 2005,[1] with her company returning to profitability in 2006.[2]

see. (Hypnosadist) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't state anywhere that Stewart is banned from the UK. If you're trying to make out that Stewart is a liar because of a supposed contradiction in the above regarding her business dealings, then that is irrelevent to this article and quote obviously violates WP:NPOV. Please contribute constructively. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its in one of the the two sources for this artcle;

In recent years, individuals from a range of backgrounds have been prevented from entering the UK. They have included animal rights activists, rap singers such as Snoop Dogg and even a lifestyle "guru" - Martha Stewart. She was kept out after being jailed in the US for lying to investigators about a share sale.

Its the very last bit of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033060.stm (Hypnosadist) 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. If you can think of a better name for this article, feel free to suggest it here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski is banned from entering the United Kingdom. I'll have to find a cite on that to list him in the article.69.229.224.39 (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe the article should be renamed and also expanded to include all notable people banned from the UK. Then we can include martha stweart, snoop dog, etc, and the current list can be included in it's own section. Vexorg (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could do. I can think of a few, Geert Wilders for example was banned in February, as it says here. What about a complimentary article, something like Travel bans and the United Kingdom? There's already been quite a lot of reaction to the original list, such as Savage declaring he's going to sue Jacqui Smith. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article doesn't need renaming to include Wilders, Stewart, etc,etc, the article just needs expanding to make what's there already a subsection. In fact I think it would increase the value of the article immensely to include the others. Vexorg (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Home Office website "In the period from August 2005 to 31 March 2009, a total of 101 individuals have been excluded from the UK". Whilst I agree it would be a good idea, many 'refusals' don't appear to have been widely reported. The exception with these 22 is that they were refused entry before they even tried to enter and 16 of them were then publically 'named and shamed'. Incidentally Savage always says he’s going to sue, not that he ever wins. 2writer (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was only suggesting listing notable people though. but then I suppose being publicly named for being excluded does give them some notability. I don't thin article shoudl be confined to those barred from entry befroe they even tried to enter. Vexorg (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may be incorrect regarding my statement "they were refused entry before they even tried to enter", as I've just read a news article on Phelps which claims he was banned when Phelps stated he was "planning a trip" in order to picket an event. It seems these 22 were just the most recent individuals to be banned. Which, in my view, adds weight to the idea of expanding the list. 2writer (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phelps was planning to enter, trying to enter means turning up at a UK airport etc. If he was planning to protest a UK soldiers funeral then he should thank god for Jacki saving his life, because he would have been beaten to death by passers-by let alone the squadi's family, and quite right to. (Hypnosadist) 12:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about hate promoters excluded from the UK as thats what the home office said is the reason these 22 people have been banned and 16 named and shamed. (Hypnosadist) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it does appear that these 22 (16 of which were named) are just the latest people to be banned, irrespective of whether they attempted to gain entry or not. Regarding renaming, perhaps remove the prefix "List of", so it just reads “Individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom”. 2writer (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is the "crime" that these specific 22 people have been banned for is unique. Most people banned from the UK are banned on the grounds of a criminal conviction ie Martha Stewart. These people are banned for the crimes they "might" commit if we were stupid enough to let them in. (Hypnosadist) 12:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those 22 have, like Stewart, been convicted of crimes abroad. And unless we know the grounds for all 101 bans the 'uniqueness' of these 22 bans is just speculation.2writer (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes some are criminals, but these 22 have been banned for Hatespeech not their criminal activities, thats what the UK government says. (Hypnosadist) 12:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others not on the list have been also, like Geert Wilders for instance. 2writer (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we are now at the point of if this article is going to remain about the 22 people on this list released or about Everyone banned for Hatespeech or everyone banned from the UK full stop.
I started this article and my intention was to keep it to just those banned in the list. Another article would be appropriate for other bans. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is entirely appropriate to include other bans in this article. Any separate article would like result in a merge request at some point. And no disrespect but, whilst your opinion on the article is certainly valid, who started the article is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. 2writer (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with 2writer, I agree with his suggestion that we rename this article to make it simple Individuals banned from the United Kingdom. Then we could create a heading about the recent home office list, containing both the current table as it is now, and a few paragraphs describing the context of the list and reaction to it. Another heading would be about other individuals, and we could put Stewart, Wilders et al in a second table. YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, per my above suggested name change, Travel bans and the United Kingdom. Either way so this article can assume a wider remit.YeshuaDavid (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Travel bans and the United Kingdom gets you into even more subject matter as we (the UK) issue travel bans to our own citizens to stop them traveling to other countries, mostly football hooligans and pedophiles. (Hypnosadist) 00:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 2writer in that the article shouldn't be limited to these 22(16). I thyink the article much improved now we have the reasons inteh table and the extra names. Although I wouldn't oppose such a move I don't think a name change is necessary.Vexorg (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think lets just see if we can find any more individuals to add before we do any major shift. (Hypnosadist) has a good point in that the UK does ban/warn people not to visit certain countries, plus some countries like North Korea may ban british citizens. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some excellent work by YeshuaDavid on the article. Its looking really good. Given the expansion perhaps a name change is now useful. Perhaps say,
Individuals banned from the United Kingdom
Individuals banned from entering the United Kingdom
People banned from the United Kingdom
People banned from entering the United Kingdom
Something along those lines. Ideally somewhat shorter than what we have at the moment. Although I'm not averse to waiting and seeing if that's the general view. What say everybody else?2writer (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not adverse to any of the above bearing in mind that Several members on the list are up for AfDs: Pavel Skachevsky, Artur Ryno, Nasr Javed, Safwat Hijazi, Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Yunis Al Astal, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal. I'm guessing that everyone wants the option of knowing who these people really are and that, where an article is deleted, there will be a need to migrate infomation into this article. I'm not sure if this will be relevant to the end title or not. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would be possible to add some kind of micro-bio on this page, if those pages are deleted. Perhaps just adding an extra column(s) to the table(s) which offers concise info on the relevant party. Interesting to note that most of those people appear to be Islamists, as are many more on the list, which at least appears to say something about the main reason for the governments banning orders. I might work out a rough ratio of those that are when the list is extended somewhat. If nothing more it'd be interesting to note. 2writer (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'd say stick with the current title. If, however, lots of these individuals are deleted it might be worth changing the title (all of 2writer's suggestions sound pretty good), and adding these mini-biographies. Two of the people I've just added recently also don't have articles, despite being fairly notable. If we take this option we could link each of the redlinked individuals without articles to their respective small bio further down the page. Ideally, I would also like in the long run to see if we could make equivilent articles for other countries.

Also, I'm slightly worried that some of the people banned from the EU may not be banned from the UK, since Britain doesn't participate in the Schengen Agreement - anyone here an expert? YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Reinvention of Martha Stewart, BusinessWeek
  2. ^ Martha Stewart Living posts a quarterly profit, MSNBC

Short biogs from the BBC[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033319.stm has a short biog on each person now. (Hypnosadist) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Do fellow editors think that a template of the list should be created to be placed on the pages of the people on the list? (Hypnosadist) 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the Home Office list. However, I'd oppose creating a template all the other people banned, since that list is too loose and incomplete. YeshuaDavid (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me. (Hypnosadist) 17:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've made a template. If you've got any ideas for improvement, please post your comments here. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the template. (Hypnosadist) 23:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of Sun Myung Moon[edit]

I removed the American and North Korean flags and left the flag of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). This was changed to the Korean Unification Flag, which isn't bad. However I still think the ROK flag is the best. True, he was born in what's now North Korea (when all of the nation was a part of the Japanese Empire). However the government he prefers is that of South Korea. It's as if in the American Civil War someone escaped from the South to the North (Frederick Douglass for example). Would you put both the Union and Confederate flag on his listing? Or an imaginary flag of a future re-United States? Borock (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I grant that he's an ROK citizen, as well as a US citizen, and spent much of his life building the Unification Church in South Korea. But he was brought up in the DPRK (and had his vision on Jesus there), which unlike the CSA is still extant late in Moon's life. The page on Moon refers to him as being "Korean", as does the page on the Unification Church. I don't really know enough about him, however. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a US citizen, although he has lived here as a legal resident for over 30 years. Part of the problem is that both the ROK and the PDRK claim to be the legitimate government of all of Korea.Borock (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake there - I originally put the US flag along the North and South Korean flags on that assumption. Yeah, I think the Unification flag is quite useful in cases like this. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this article, I'd think that the most relevant fact is which country's passport he uses. For the purposes of visas, etc, is he a South Korean national or a U.S. national?   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would think he uses a passport from the Republic of Korea, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Borock (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the WP bio says:

  • In 1971 Moon moved to the United States, which he had first visited in 1965. He remained a citizen of the Republic of Korea and maintained a residence in South Korea.

Since he is a citizen of South Korea it is logical to use that flag.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I'll change the flag to that of South Korea then. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pretenders[edit]

I'm not certain, but wasn't James (the Old pretender) & his sons Charles & Henry, barred? GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure - I don't know that he or his family were "banned from entering" England during his exile, and I'm not sure if there was any parliamentary act banning them from returning. Right now, this list only deals with 20th and 21st century individuals, but we could certainly expand it to earlier figures if we know they were definately banned from England, Scotland and Wales. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 20:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brookes[edit]

Is it fair to have Brookes in there. My understanding was that he wasn't banned or anything, he just got snared in a bureacratic screw up with visas. Theres an implication there that he's done something terrible, when I'm not convinced he has. Unless it was a bad behavior ban, but I havent seen any evidence of that. Care should be made to distinguish between barred and banned. Banned means "piss off and dont come back". Barred can merely mean "You dont have the paperwork, go home and sort it out" 121.44.243.227 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. A lot of soccer players have some paperwork problems and can't come, not because of their previous activities or ideologies. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Polanski[edit]

Isn't Polanski also banned from entering the United Kingdom? 99.98.1.31 (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. In fact I imagine they want him to enter the country so they can arrest them. He has too much sense than to go to Britain though.--Xania talk 00:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik[edit]

Zakir Naik is also blocked to enter in Britain.

Dimi Mint Abba[edit]

The source [1] given for this entry only says: "Four musicians from the Mauritanian singer Dimi Mint Abba's group will not be present when she performs at The Proms at the Royal Albert Hall this Friday" not that Dimi Mint Abba is herself in any way banned. Danja (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka-M-14[edit]

Is this an actual person? It looks like vandalism to me. MBrykein (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dog[edit]

Is not banned anymore but is on the wrong list. 86.155.104.221 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Osama bin Laden[edit]

Is not deceased. Ienpw III (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ogugua[edit]

No idea who this guy is but the table doesn't seem right. 1) There is no such thing as English nationality (that's what it says in the table) and 2) if he has British nationality then he can't be banned from entering the UK. He could lose his nationality and then be barred but he can't be British and barred at the same time.

--Xania talk 00:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson[edit]

Daily Telegraph is not a reliable source for such a serous accusation. Paul Robeson was never banned from entering the US. His passport was LIFTED by the US in 1950 and he could not travel: In 1950, the State Department denied Robeson a passport and issued a "stop notice" at all ports, effectively confining him within the US. Robeson was not allowed to travel to Canada or Mexico, countries that US citizens could visit without a passport. Far from seeking to revoke his US citizenship and deport him, the FBI and state department records indicate that the US government believed that a blacklisted existence inside the US borders would offer Robeson less freedom of expression than his presence internationally would.[215] When Robeson and his lawyers met with officials at the State Department and asked why it was "detrimental to the interests of the United States Government" for him to travel abroad, they were told that "his frequent criticism of the treatment of blacks in the United States should not be aired in foreign countries"—it was a `family affair'."[216] When Robeson inquired about being re-issued a passport, the State Department declined, citing Robeson's refusal to sign a statement guaranteeing "not to give any speeches while outside the U.S." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.70.252 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From scumbags to silliness. Ha ha.[edit]

This article started out being about serious scumbags. With the new section that includes Martha Stewart and singers, it's about "Look how silly England is!" ...except it has the veneer of seriousness, as if Martha Stewart really does belong listed along with serious filth. Only mechanical thinkers could support that concept. Have wiki authors been replaced by bots that actually don't comprehend this? The only possible defense of this must start with "Well, technically speaking...." ...as if the original title must dictate anything which follows, forever. Shame.

"Look how silly England is!" may be useful, but this is the wrong way to do it. Wikipedia is better than that. But quality is not effortless.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:5121:7FA7:B7C8:A2C7 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

Bobi Wine[edit]

He is a Ugandan politician who was banned but it seemed like his ban was lifted.

1. https://nation.africa/kenya/news/africa/bobi-wine-free-to-visit-the-uk-after-lifting-of-10-year-ban--4425352 2. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/11/07/uk-lifts-travel-ban-on-ugandan-opposition-leader-over-anti-gay-song-lyrics/ 3. https://twitter.com/HEBobiwine/status/1721021501976293409 4. https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/uk-lifts-bobi-wine-s-travel-ban-4425014 Steveonsi (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1206560097"