Talk:Lalith Kotelawala

Golden key1
Investigations are been carried out by the CID and a court case is pending, until the findings of the court and investigation is published I see no reason for labing Golden key pyramid scheme based on papers that have not been established as RS. Writing facts and details of the Scandal is quit fare. Cossde (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is Sri Lanka knows that it was a pyramid scheme. The nation is a reliable newspaper which meets wikipedias WP:RS guidlines. Even the sunday times too describes it as a ponzi scheme. In Sri lanka the court case can be dragged on for years, so it is not practical to wait for the court ruling. I do not think that we should waste time trying to white wash this fraudster who is a Sri Lankan version of Madoff and has been taking the country for a ride for decades and now suddenly finds him in hot soup.Kerr avon (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your claims must be backed up, "Everyone is Sri Lanka knows that it was a pyramid scheme" isnt that POV and I dont believe nation is a reliable newspaper. The Sunday times does not describe it as a ponzi scheme bt says others do. And if Im nt mistaken it is the courts that decides that if something is illegal and not news papers or private citizens. So lets wait till the courts rule that its a ponzi scheme. I cant see why that is white wash. Cossde (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is important is the The Nation meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidlines. Please give a valid reason why The Nation or The Times are not reliable sources before deleting information to white wash this fraudster.Kerr avon (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So are accusations made against me as I am trying to white wash a fraudster? fine.
 * 1. The said source (Sundaytimes) have not been deleted, look closely without meaninglessly reverting, in fact it has been added as a referenced by me (when you mealy gave it as a link).
 * 2. The Sundaytimes article does not directly say that golden key was a pyramid scheme. Therefor does not meet Verifiability
 * 3. I don't agree that The Nation is a reliable source as the article does not meet No original research conditions.
 * 4. This article must adhere to Biographies of living persons guild lines, hence claiming that he ran a pyramid scheme, when it is yet to be determined by a Court of Law can be considered POV. Only a Court of Law could establish that a person is a criminal, not a News paper or you or me could do that.
 * 5. The Aurthur of the article on the nation, as I see there is non, has not been established as a legal expert, to voice a opinion on the matter.
 * Get your sources right, or just wait till the court publishes it verdict, when that happens we will add it.Cossde (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources are correct and it is sri lankas deputy solicitor general that is making the statement. Hence it is noteworthy to be included and does not violate any guidline. On a side note please stop whitewashing this fraudster who is responsible for the suffering of tens of thousands. Your reasons for censoring information may be because he is 1. A royalist 2. He is a UNP supporter. Well as a old royalist myself i am disgusted by what he has done and think he should not be whitewashed. Viji Weerasinghe must be turning in his grave when he heard this no doubt! Kerr avon (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Once againe I'm not attempting a whitewashing. My objective is to give a NPOV article for wiki readers. However you, the way I see it is trying to a push your view in to the article ex "i am disgusted by what he has done and think he should not be whitewashed", could it be that 1. you have a personal issue with the person in question 2. you have invested money in GK. This goes to prove that any number of assumptions can be made on your edits.


 * According to the law of Sri Lanka a person has to be found guilty by a court of law not the deputy solicitor general (who is only charged with the prosecution). If we base our conclusion that Kotelawala is a ponzi on the statements of Mr Sarath Jayamanna as the deputy solicitor general, then we must also consider him innocent based on the statements of Mr C. R. de Silva who was the former Attorney General of Sri Lanka who made bail application for Kotelawala, as said in the article. So lets leave it to the courts to decide if he is guilty and of what he is guilty. Cossde (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then surely mentioning that he has been accused by the prosecution of having running a ponzi scheme does not violate any guidelines?124.43.77.150 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enoughCossde (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lalith Kotelawala. 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/20090329081206/http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=44614 to http://www.dailymirror.lk/DM_BLOG/Sections/frmNewsDetailView.aspx?ARTID=44614

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)