Talk:Nihal Sri Ameresekere

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Sri Lanka Mid‑importance

	Sri Lanka portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sri Lanka 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.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

I am removing Notability tag since the WP:RS have added significantly. If anyone wants re-add the tag, please discuss why you want add the tag here on the talk page before you re-add. Otherwise I will take this issue for RfC.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Controversy Section in Nihal Sri Ameresekere's page

Hi. I believe your attempts at reversing my addition of this section are manifestly and demonstrably unfair and unreasonable. Biographic accounts should give a balanced view (both positive and negative) about the individual.

The controversy section outlines a series of major allegations levelled against Mr. Amarasekere by a prominent newspaper. It is clearly mentioned that they have been denied by Mr. Amarasekere, though he did not sue the paper for defamation.

There is no requirement to cite multiple sources, especially since the allegations were published in a national newspaper. In fact some of the other information given in the article also do not have multiple sources.

Many biographic accounts in wikipedia contain sections detailing controversial issues about public figures, and I see no reason why Mr. Amarasekere should be exempted.

I request you to refrain from deleting the Controversy section.

Yukthiya (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the information you are adding are based on the communication of the email conversation of the Editor of the newspaper; since that the same newspaper can't be a reliable source on this accusation when WP:BLP concerned and you should support by another reliable source. Anyway, I am not stating The Sunday Leader is not a reliable source, but not in this instant.Manjulaperera (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add the content untill we come to a common consensus.Manjulaperera (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email is one source of communication that could be used in exposé. This is not a private dispute between the editor of the newspaper and Mr. Amarasekere.

The article alleges that (among others) due to Mr. Amarsekere's false allegations regarding the Hilton Hotel construction, the government had to pay interest in addition to the full amount to the Japanese contractor. And that he wanted certain unrelated cases against him withdrawn in a settlement agreement he prepared as an advisor to the govenrment.

Aren't these a serious enough that readers of wikipedia have a right to know? This is very relevant since the wikipedia biography portrays him as a public interest litigator.

If the allegations amounts to libel, it is for Mr. Amarasekere to sue the paper. He hasn't done so.

So how come you consider it to be libel? Yukthiya (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The communication was between the Editor Frederica Jansz and Nihal Sri Ameresekere's lawyers. She was finally sacked by the newspaper on other issues. How the subject can sue the newspaper based on some issues which were written by the Editor who was sacked.Manjulaperera (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in 2009, Jansz was sacked after the ownership changed in September 2012. Mr. Amarasekere had three full years to sue Jansz, but didn't.

Significantly, in the replies made by Mr. Ameresekere's lawyers there is no mention or threat of suing for defamation. Therefore the allegations remain unanswered, and must be mentioned in any unbiased account on Mr. Amarasekere.

Yukthiya (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paper clipping of The Sunday Leader where they themselves admit having received money for wrong reporting. If any administrator wants to have a look on, I can send it to him/her. That particular article's online version was deleted.

The Sunday Leader Editor had been warned and cautioned by the Supreme Court for false reporting as borne out by the Google Book link.

Also shows the duplicity of the Editor and that the Editor had failed to verify the correct facts before reporting, even when put on Notice. Furthermore, the Hansards had been in 1995 and 1996 and how is it that she wrote some bullshit in 2009? There was no purpose in giving the Editor importance by suing.Manjulaperera (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manjulaperera prevaricates without addressing the allegations noted above. Furthermore he offers no rational explanation as to why Mr. Ameresekere failed sue Jansz. He had 3 years from 2009-12 to do so. ~

Below he notes with glee that Mr. Ameresekere sued Prof. G.L. Peiris. So that begs the question - Why didn't Mr. Ameresekere sue Fredrica Jansz. Was it an overdose of Chivalry??

Furthermore, the article link was hosted in the Sunday Leader website upto this December and deleted only recently, after this page made references to it. It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to conclude that it was done at Mr. Ameresekere's request. It shows the depth and extent to which Mr. Ameresekere and his stooges would go to in a futile attempt to project their false pretensions.

Try as you might manjulaperera but you cannot whitewash Mr. Ameresekere's track record of duplicity and dishonesty.

Yukthiya (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is because Ameresekere didn't sue Fredrica Jansz, doesn't make sense that she is right and Ameresekere is wrong. We can't go for a fight with each and every one, we confront in real life. Either it is not worth for sparing our valuable time and energy or they are not worth for a battle to be won.

The deleted article is nothing to do with Ameresekere or any of his cases. It is something to do with Frederica Jansz, The Sunday Leader and United National Party. The way you jump the gun before you decipher the facts, shows you have some real world Conflict of Interest with the subject or you are closely associated with those who are Conflict of Interest with the subject.Manjulaperera (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I have created a section on Controversy and added facts from Hansard and other.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Yukthiya

The Controversy section created by Manjulaperera is poorly written.

It cites from Mr. Amarasekere's own website consultants21.com - so much for independent sources. In addition it makes potentially libelous references to Prof. G.L. Peiris. The fact remains that there remains substantial allegations against Mr. Amarasekere which are outlined above.

Manjulaperera is biased in favour of Mr. Amarasekere. If he wishes he can keep editing this page, but the substantial allegations against Mr. Amarasekere would still remain.

Readers would be skeptical about biographic accounts in wikipedia if negative substantial allegations are removed according to the whims of biased editors.

Yukthiya (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also statements made in Parliament are privileged and they are not libelous. G.L. Peiris could have taken legal action. He had not. On the contrary Nihal Sri Ameresekere had taken legal action against G.L. Peiris as referred to in the Google Book Link cited.Manjulaperera (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section is incoherent and poorly written apart from being manifestly biased. Manjulaperera again dodges issues. Statements made in parliament are not libelous, but content on wikipedia is.

Furthermore, Mr. Ameresekere's legal action against G.L. Peiris did not succeed. On the contrary in 1997 Mr. Ameresekere's contract as adviser to the government was not extended since he drafted a one sided agreement of settlement as noted above.

References and content is biased in favour of Mr. Ameresekere. The original Controvesy section written by myself should stand as it states the allegations against Mr. Ameresekere and in fairness to him also mentions that fact that they were denied by him.

Yukthiya (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the Chapter-13 of the Derivative / Hedging Deals by Citibank, USA, Standard Chartered Bank, UK, Deutsche Bank, Germany, with Sri Lanka Government's Petroleum Corporation - Dubious & Illegal?, it gives totally different picture of Frederica Jansz and the Editorial Compromises of The Sunday Leader. I don't think something written by an Editor who has Conflict of Interest with the subject and the same time Editor of a newspaper which was compromised at least once, can't be a reliable source at all. And the Content based on those sources are either not reliable or original research.Manjulaperera (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Wikipedia's external links policy suggests that external links should be kept to a minimum, suggesting specific kinds that may be appropriate. That does not include, as recently added, hagiography from the lawyer who represents the subject of the article, especially when added by an account with an obvious COI. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one External link at the moment, you have failed to state what do mean by "specific kinds". The External link which I have added, was published in January, you can't consider that as recently added; are you missing anything? How sure you are that it was added by the subject's Lawyer or what do you mean by that statement? While you say COI, you too taking extra care on this Wikipedia article, showing your COI with the subject.Manjulaperera (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the policy and then you will know what kind of links it suggests. I also suggest you read what I wrote; the _link_ was recently added (true) and it was written by the lawyer (also true).

I have no COI whatsoever. All I know about Nihal Sri Ameresekere is he's got a terrible Wikipedia article edited by people like you who go to tremendous pains to write about how marvellous he supposedly is. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

Based on @Mr rnddude:'s advice at ANI, I have added possible official website www.consultants21.com of the subject on the External link section. Manjulaperera (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issues

I removed the Controversy section since it violates WP:BLP, Colombo Telegraph is not a reliable source; and the content in the Daily FT article should be re-written by a senior editor with more neutral point of view.Eesan1969 (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]