Talk:Angela Knight

message: The below text has been forwarded to the administrators of Wikipedia's Biographies of living Persons Notice board. A good faith edit has now been removed on two occasions, and opens the possibility that this site is overly self serving and unbalanced. It is now open to third party arbitration. Vigilantbabyboomer (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion at WP:BLPN is not a referral to arbitration. I agree that the material critical of Knight should be in the article, but it doesn't need its own section or a long explanation about the case. So, I've added one sentence to the same section that notes her position at the BBA. I've also removed the coin phrase as it's unsourced and has been tagged since 2010.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: It is noted that User : 'British Bankers' has been blocked indefinitely as being in blatant breach of   Wikipedia's important editorial impartiality, and promotion protocols, as of 17 January 2012.
It is felt that the article British Bankers' Association should now be completely overhauled by a fully independent editor, and then placed open to discussion and arbitration regarding any nuances of interpretation. The revised article should be balanced, devoid of self-promotion, and referenced with verifiable citations that are also independently sourced.
In 2009 'British Bankers' edited that The BBA’s mission is to PROMOTE and protect the interests of the UK’s banks and financial services . This is precisely why an employee of the BBA cannot possibly be expected to edit this site impartially.
Immediately evident is the need for independent and verifiable citations for the claims made under 'SME'. Furthermore, for balance, there is no reference to the BBA's 'humiliating climb down' over the banks' PPI misselling saga, and the widely publicised High Court action in this regard. The latter will always be a milestone in the BBA's history, yet, it is conspicuously absent from the article.
It is also noted that User : 'British Bankers' has edited and removed verifiable content on the site of Angela Knight, CEO of the BBA. Again, this is precisely why editorial independence is one of Wikipedia's cornerstones, and why it is right that editors abusing its user and impartiality protocols are blocked. If Wikipedia is to permit articles on Xmas to be written and edited by Turkeys, then the vital balance that Wikipedia espouses will always be will a forlorn expectation. (Vigilantbabyboomer (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Angela Knight article and The British Bankers' Association article''' 

message: #Erewash being marginal: Is this somewhat subjective?
#The "2012 General Election": Don't see how this is relevant? She had left politics some 13 years earlier (assuming the reference is to the 2010 election).
#Erewash replacement of reference: Looks like sanitisation to me. The article title might not be palatable. However, I would class the Independent as a more reliable source in comparison to a web-site run by volunteers.
#CBE Comments by chairman: Unreferenced. Does it serve any purpose other than to make article that little more gushing? What do you expect people to say when commenting on NY honours?
#Merger with European Association of Securitues Dealers: (Unreferenced) I  found some references to this - but nothing beyond brief reports. I've found no report on its significance or Knight's role. Kind of suggests to me it lacks any great significance.
#Freedom of the City of London: Unreferenced. 
#Her own comments on leaving BBA: Unreferenced. Did you expect her to put a negative spin on it?
#Other's "praise": One is unreferenced. All is a bit gushing given that the same edit removed criticsms from some BBA members. That makes me think the changes were more about sanitising the article.
Pit-yacker (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 16 May 2012 

message: Congratulations 'Pit-yacker'.
In noting your recent comments, I have to agree that this site does not reflect Wikipedia's values of editorial independence, and impartiality. It transpires that when Ms Knight was with the British Bankers Association, the BBA were themselves updating and deleting content, to create a sanitised and self-congratulatory text. You are correct, Ms Knight received much criticism in her BBA role as chief apologist for the banks. Following the PPI mis-selling debacle, even BBA members themselves called for Ms Knight to stand down. To delete or manipulate such factual information, creates a biased and partisan article. Thank you for your good work. (Silkstoneart (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan sanisation 

message: Will Angela Knight ever be arrested and questioned for her time at the British Bankers Association??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prosecution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Angela Knight. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011172609/http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=153&a=7992 to http://www.bba.org.uk/bba/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=153&a=7992
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified