Talk:Sirimavo Bandaranaike

Cause of death?
Can anyone provide her cause of death? --Epl 07:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Heart attack. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/964914.stm. --MySore 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

True or false?
Her name is Icelandic for "I love America". 86.142.52.87 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

False you moron!123.255.55.45 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. -kotra (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
Here is an image of her, except that it comes from a site with "non-commercial only" license:

The context is here: http://64.33.17.104/rulers/indexb1.html#bandasi

Terms in office
The statement " She remained in office until her death" is false. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/964914.stm --MySore 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Photo
Photo of Sirimavo Bandaranaike in 1969 uploadedFitz Mackins (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When elected?
It says she was appointed to the Senate, and remained there til 1965. It doesn’t say when (or if) she was elected.

I don’t know enough to edit this “She restructured the party trade unions, ...”. I suspect it’s “She restructured the party, [and] trade unions, ...”. MBG02 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On the point about restructuring party unions, the phrasing isn't wrong: Sri Lanka's unions are almost all under the control of one party or other, and so it's very likely she restructured whatever unions came under control of the SLFP. - ක - (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 5 August 1960.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The link says [With the resignation of M.P. de Zoysa, the path was paved for Sirimavo to be sworn in as a member of the Senate on 5 August, 1960.] Nothing about being elected (in her first term).MBG02 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Members of the Senate weren't directly elected. They were either elected by the House of Representatives or appointed by the Governor. I don't know which of these categories Bandaranaike falls into.--Obi2canibe (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m still wondering.

I’m sure I’ve seen her cited as the first elected female head-of-government - in 1960. The members of the party she led were elected by popular vote. But she doesn’t seem to have been elected (by popular vote) til a few years later (in 1963)? Is that worth more comment... in the article? MBG02 (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on British electoral law, but I think that is splitting hairs. She was unanimously elected as head of the party. Under the Westminster system, if the electorate chose her party to govern, she would be the person appointed as PM. Thus, even though she she was not directly vying for a district seat, she actively campaigned. Voters were aware returning a majority for her party was electing her, as it was/is the way the British system worked. Unless you find a source that says she was not popularly elected, it would, to my mind, be original research to insert an opinion. SusunW (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cabinet Positions
Hi User:SusunW, User:Alanna the Brave and User:Ipigott thank you for the great work done on this article. I thought I might help out too! It seems there may have been more cabinet positions that Bandaranaike held during her second tenure. See Second Sirimavo Bandaranaike cabinet. The sources there back it up. Have you guys found anymore details on this during your research? Also do you think we can find more about her time as a Senator in the Parliament? Looking foreward to hearing from you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Obviously, we felt that as the first woman Prime Minister in the world, her article deserved better. I found nothing about her various legislative posts that isn't in the article. If you have sources, please add them; using harv/ref style, but if you don't know how to do that, just input them and I can convert them. For Asia month, we decided to work it up for Good Article nomination so the citations have to be consistent. Here is my assessment of what we still need to do. Alanna is going to work on the legacy section, if you can find information about her Senatorial service that'd be great. I know from experience, where you are has a lot to do with the sources you have available, so if you find info we don't have, we would welcome the additions! SusunW (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added citations to all the dates that were added. Please do not add any uncited materials, as we are working on a GA nomination and finishing the final edits. I moved the genealogical section to see also, as nothing in it appears to be cited. SusunW (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added those additional cabinet positions with citations and citations to the family tree. If you could convert them or show me how to that would be great! Unfortunately there are now end dates to those positions that I could find.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I converted the references in the body. Unfortunately the genealogical section needs to be removed entirely, as worldgenweb.org is not a RS which has been curated. If you want to create a page on her genealogy separately, feel free to do that, but unless you can find a scholarly printed work on the subject, it is likely to be sent to AfD because of WP:OR or WP:NOT. Please remove the section so that the review can go forward. Thanks for adding the photograph with Zhao Enlai. I did not see it, as it was not categorized with her other photos. I added a category, so it will now be grouped with her other photographs. The only problem I see is that it requires a US copyright tag as well as the Chinese one. According to this if the original image was not published within US requirements and is not eligible for reinstatement of the copyright, it is in the US public domain. Can you confirm that these are true? I would ask you again to refrain from adding information during the review process. Clearly, to satisfy the reviewer's questions, we can add clarifying information. But I must reiterate that the information must be stable for the review to proceed. SusunW (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I will remove the genealogical section. As for the image, I did not upload it but I found it in the Chinese version of this article and I do not know the specifics surrounding the images publication or its copyright details. Therefore I will remove the it for now until it can be sorted out.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally admit I am confused by copyright stuff . Let's see if can help with the photo use questions. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A little more info. On the 9 photos I uploaded, I checked US copyright.gov website and there are no photographs with Bandaranaike's name that have been copyrighted in the US, so does that mean that we meet the first part of the equation? If that holds, then the only question would be does China allow copyright to be restored. Well, that and what tag to put on it for US copyright. SusunW (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh geez. Umm...Well it would have still been under copyright on the URAA date in 1996, because it wouldn't have fallen out of copyright in the source country until 2014. My understanding is that even if it was not published in the US with a copyright notice, it would have been recaptured by copyright in the US because URAA. But mid-20th Century copyright is a huge weak spot of mine (because it's bonkers). Ping User:Majora and User:Alexis Jazz, who are two of my own go-to folks when it comes to this stuff.  G M G  talk  16:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have an instant answer, but Intellectual property in China seems to tell me China didn't even have a copyright law until the early 90s. Question is, did that retroactively protect all works? It most probably did, but if it didn't and China indeed had no copyright law before 1990, that 1964 photo was never copyrighted in the first place. You may want to read File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 38b.pdf (especially this part: "A Chinese play from 1983 will be protected until December 31 of the 70th year after the year in which its author dies."). Since Chinese copyright has expired anyway, it would also help to know who the author is. URAA didn't restore copyright for governments, File:U.S. Copyright Office circular 92, Tıtle 17 of the United States Code, December 2016.pdf: "Exception.—Any work in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian and in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof, is not a restored work.". - Alexis Jazz 17:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining quality is essential

 * I have no intention of edit warring with you, but will need to notify a neutral administrator of the problem if you make these changes for a third time without discussion and consensus on this talk page. Because of the importance of this internationally-known statesman, a group of editors worked together to improve the article to Good Article status. Changes to the article must maintain that level of quality.
 * Your additions neither follow the WP:MOS instructions to maintain the established style of the piece nor its neutrality. The lead is an uncited summary of the salient events in her life and administration, and refers to information already cited in the body of the article. Removing the information regarding her administration's nationalistic policies, agreed by scholars to be pivotal to her leadership, distorts the historic record. Introducing citations to the lead, and adding citations which do not follow the accepted citation style of the article, should be avoided without discussion and agreement on the necessity for the variations.
 * The article you have inserted is an opinion piece by a journalist and properly indicated as such: http://www.ft.lk/ opinion /What-we-should-not-forget-about-the-pre-1977-economy/14-640275 . There are no sources cited for us to confirm where the information originated. Scholarly evaluation of the economy during her tenure through 1977, shows that economic development was mostly stagnant, that the excessive borrowing of the regime created inflation and reduced the purchasing power of citizens and investors. The few gains that were made in manufacturing did not stimulate economic growth or investment and there was a severe food crisis, high unemployment, and low capacity utlization. If you can find a peer reviewed or academic article which presents the argument of this journalist, feel free to bring it to the talk page for discussion. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Very bias summary on her politics
Can we at least add a few good things she did in the summary ! The summary seem very bias ! You should at least include her diplomatic missions ! Also the citizenship act was not brought in by her ,mentioning that add further to the negative bias of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirunika Balasuriya (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * politics is always a business with winners and losers and politicians are rarely all-good or all-bad. To remain neutral, the article has to present both sides, it is not a memorial to her, but an informative article. The lead does not say that she passed the citizenship act. It says the estate Tamils became stateless when the law was passed and that her policies made their situation worse. The summary is not the place to detail her diplomatic missions, it states that she was a leader and played a large role internationally, it gives her credit for her social work, for creating a republic, for creating a ministry to work on the issues effecting women and children, for opposing the tactics used in the civil war, and not just serving as the first female head of state in the world, but being elected three times. How is that negative bias? If you would like to propose alternative text you feel is more balanced, feel free to propose it here for discussion. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverts
can you please indicate the spelling errors, violated NPOV and addition of unsourced material in the content here as that I can address these one by one. Cossde (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore the text again. I have reverted your additions for the 2nd time. Please do not restore them, as that would violate the three-revert rule. Discussion takes place before insertion of questionable text. Asking us to do a line by line summary of your errors and POV is not typically how WP works. The article was expanded by a group of editors, who reviewed the sources to ensure that all material in the article was cited and properly referenced, and was reviewed by another group of editors to ensure it met quality standards and was free from point of view. Your additions overall have added spelling errors, point of view and were not supported by the sources already listed. As you didn't add new sourcing, your material is unreferenced and unacceptable for a GA.
 * As a small list which does not address all the errors, you inserted flaunt instead of fluent; formerly meaning before the present, is not grammatically correct, (she couldn't have formerly entered politics after her husband's assassination) perhaps you meant formally?; titles Dr., Mrs., Sir, Rate Mahatmaya are not used with people's names on WP; adding welfare to social work is POV, so is "a nominal role", as is "without formal qualifications" which clearly the source did not state, as is "Her socialist economic policies failed with drop in productivity after the nationalization of private land and enterprises" and "food rationing and unemployment. She was accused of abuse of power, using the her majority in parliament, she extended her government's term by two additional years, took over independent media organizations, ruthlessly suppressed the insurrection and introduced legislation to punish perpetrators." None of these things belong in the lede summary, which must be pulled from documented statements in the body. Have you read all of the sources? Do they say what you are inserting? If not, then do not insert it unless you have a reliable source which can document your text. If you have material to add that improves the article, list it here and we'll be happy to discuss it. Politics is a win/lose profession making politicians hard to write about. One cannot draw conclusions from the sources and must weigh POV, to keep the article accurate, informative and balanced. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, your point is clear. However there are short comings in the text you and other editors have drafted. How can these be discussed or is it beyond discussion at this point! Cossde (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Many key elements of her second term such as the Land Reclamation Commission, Criminal Justice Commission, inception of the Tamil militancy, food rationing and finally the her extension of her term by two years, postponing of elections which resulted her in losing her civil rights. Calling her family aristocracy when they were in fact descended from the Radala Chiefs. Cossde (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * details of controversies do not belong in the lede. They are suited to the body where they can be discussed giving an in-depth discussion of all sides of the issues. The lede introduces very briefly the major topics that are expanded in the article. As such, Sri Lankan titles, which the great majority of people outside the country do not understand are explained in the article, not in the lede. Aristocracy is generally understood worldwide as a hereditary social rank/class, typically for people with blood ties to the sovereign who are landowners. Nobles on the other hand, are simply people who have been bestowed a title. Multiple sources indicate radalas were aristocracy.,, Thus looking for a word to summarize her family, aristocracy seems to fit the bill. In the early life section, the discussion explains the various Sri Lankan positions of her family and titles they held. If you have a better word and can document that it was applied to radalas, feel free to propose it with sources. SusunW (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed these contents need to be added to the body. In terms of the radalas were neither an aristocracy nor nobles in the western sense of the term. These were chieftains, appointed by the king and the titles or offices were not hereditary.Cossde (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your comments. This is a biography. Detail of issues/aspects belong in articles on that subject and links provided for those articles so people can access more information. Likewise, her family background should be linked to other articles that explain aspects in detail, but lengthy explanations of it are inappropriate in an article on "her". Maybe the article on Radalas needs improvement with sourcing to make your points? But reading the sources I provided above, Radalas were members of a royal caste, which is definitely a hereditary social position. They could be appointed by the king to hold various offices, such as Rate Mahatmaya, which was both a title and an office (nobility) as a Village head or chieftain. (Neither of those links contain any discussion of the Sri Lankan system, and possibly should link to Rate Mahatmaya?) While I understand that the positions do not have a direct correlation to western terms, they had both aspects of aristocracy and nobility, which are widely understood terms. Her father's brief description already says he was "Rate Mahatmaya, a native headman" so I am guessing your issue is with "the Radala, hereditary nobility? As you have still not provided a source for another word I do not know how to proceed. Do you want to change nobility here to royal caste? SusunW (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Not " the world's first non-hereditary female head of government in modern history"
Although the reference supports this claim, it is patently false. One obvious counterexample is Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, who deposed the hereditary ruler, her husband Peter III. There must be other such cases. According to the link, modern history starts in 1500, so this qualification is insufficient. Maybe replacing "non-hereditary" with "elected" might work, but someone would need to find a supporting reference. Or perhaps "contemporary history" (i.e. post 1945) instead of "modern history"? Otherwise removing the claim completely would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A Google search indicates that reliable source predominantly claim merely that she was the first female prime minister and indeed our List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government relativizes the original claim. I will change the text accordingly. Jmchutchinson (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Political History, first paragraph, unclear sentence
"His successor, Dudley Senanayake, was the first to recommend compulsory repatriation for the population.[51]"

Whose successor?

--Neopeius (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * S.W.R.D.'s. SusunW (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sirimavo Bandaranaike
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sirimavo Bandaranaike's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jeyaraj1": From C. P. de Silva:  From Esmond Wickremesinghe:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

About her live
She was 197.156.86.211 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well there's no disputing that. Dgndenver (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What did she give to the society
No nothing 136.158.70.218 (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)