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: [1]

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)

@MBG02: 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)

@MBG02: 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)

@SusunW: 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)

MBG02 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)

Blackknight12 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)

Blackknight12 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)

SusunW 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 Blackknight12. Let's see if GreenMeansGo 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. GMG^talk 16:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sirimavo Bandaranaike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this: it's an extremely important article, so thanks for bringing it to GAN. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All issues have been addressed; see below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All issues addressed.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All issues addressed

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   No issues; see comment below

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spot-checked references, no issues

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool flags common phrases only; spotchecks find no issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All issues addressed

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   All issues addressed

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   All issues addressed (and were minor to begin with).

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my knowledge

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Caption issues addressed

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All comments addressed: passing shortly.

Comments

Early life

• About the titles and names of her family members; people unacquainted with Sri Lankan government and naming conventions could get those things confused quite easily. I'd suggest breaking up those sentence a bit more: "Her mother was Rosalind Hilda Mahawalatenne Kumarihamy, and her father, Barnes Ratwatte.[1][18][19] Her maternal grandfather, and later her father, both served as Rate Mahatmaya of Balangoda". Or something along those lines; breaking the title away from the name, and describing explicitly as a title.

   Done SusunW (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• " the well established Radalas from the Kingdom of Kandy." I wonder if a little more detail could be provided? "Well-established" sounds (if you'll forgive the bluntness) a bit like upper-class snobbery

  Um, yes, literally "royal caste" as opposed to the nouveau riche appointees, (invented aristocracy) of the same title, created by the British administration. I changed it to say the "family belonged to the ancient royal Radalas", if that helps. SusunW (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  Better, but I'm not too happy about "ancient". You could simply drop the adjective, IMO. If you'd rather not: what exactly does the source say about this?

  Eek, drive by editor made it sound like he was equal to royalty, and clearly that is not the case. I can't control drive by editors who make changes during the review ;) Source says "…born in the ancestral family home at Balangoda…descended from a wealthy, aristocratic, land-owning family whose members held high offices under ancient Singhalese kings…" The point is to somehow convey that it is an inherited nobility. So how about, "member of the Radala, hereditary nobility, from the Kingdom of Kandy"? SusunW (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Dropped the comma: fine now.

• I know you've linked "Walauwa", but I think the three-word description from the lead of that article would be useful to add: "Walauwa, or colonial manor house".

   Done SusunW (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• "as the Ratwattes were an old, well-established Radala family from Kandy" This is a bit repetitive with the information above; the same comment also applies.

  Far be it from me to understand the ins and outs of aristocracy, but I've reworked it to explain what I said above in less pointed terminology. Old money/inherited aristocracy vs. newer money/appointed aristocracy. SusunW (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Overall this section is much better. One more point: in the colonial system, it's unclear what the "first family" would be. It might be clearer to say "the family of the President of Sri Lanka" or whoever.

  I tried to discover who this might have been, but to no avail. It could be that an actual name is given in one of the biographies that are inaccessible to me. Intuitively, since S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike was seen as unsuitable initially, the suitor probably was not the son of a high-ranking British administrator, but then who? Someone who descended from the last monarch? or another family of the traditional aristocracy? Bottom line is I cannot answer the question. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• One further nitpick here: "Their horoscopes were found to be compatible". This is too close to Wikipedia endorsing astrology, in my view (unintentionally, to be sure). Can we tweak this to "their astrologers said their horoscopes were compatible" or something?

   Done SusunW (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Raising a family

• "Colonel Edward James Divitotawela." Since Sri Lanka was probably still a colony when this marriage took place, it may be useful to write "Edward James Divitotawela, a Colonel in [army]" because it could have been the British or the British-controlled Sri Lankan army.

  Well, I still have no clue whether he was British or Ceylonese, but I added a descriptor from the ref that shows he was involved with the Ceylonese Army. SusunW (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  From the name I think we can most likely be sure that Edward James Divitotawela is/was a Sinhalese and not British. Sinhalese people living in the coastal areas where the British were most present would often adopt European names during that time.

  ‎Blackknight12 The problem is we can't guess and to make an assumption would be OR, which is not allowed, certainly not in a GA. If documentation can be found, he could be notable, as the "founder of the Central Command of the Ceylon Army" but that would need to go in an article about him, not in an article about Bandaranaike. Please do not keep adding information during the review. There is not time to proof your additions and research the reviewer's questions simultaneously. The point is, multiple people have reviewed the information to prepare the article, so all data has been confirmed by multiple eyes. Each post she held does not need to be in this article, but rather can be linked on articles about the various cabinets in which she served. The article has to be stable, i.e. additions are completed, for the review to proceed. SusunW (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes thats true, just letting you know from a Sri Lankan perspective. No Problem, I wont be adding anymore large edits moving foreward.

• "Their marriage was noted to have helped break down social barriers in Sri Lanka over the years" Any detail available on why this was?

  Kind of like British royalty marrying commoners would be the easiest explanation. SusunW (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  No it makes intuitive sense, but if the sources say that it would be good to add. If they don't, that's fine.

  Sources that I found don't say specifically. SusunW (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

  I would say this is because Sirimavo and the Ratwatte family were part of the old Sinhalese nobility, as SusunW has stated above, an old, well-established Radala family from the Kandyan Kingdom (Kandyan Sinhalese or Up-Country Sinhalese), whereas the Bandaranaike family were nouveau riche appointees of the British administration (Low-Country Sinhalese). The Sinhalese population was divided into Kandyan and Low country Sinhalese during this time, culturally and through caste. The Kandyan Sinhalese formed the traditional elite whereas the Low country Sinhalese were under European administration for much longer. See this

  Okay, it makes sense now, but without further detail I'm a bit unhappy with the vague "was noted". Can we add specifically who said that, and in that way make them responsible for the vagueness?

  Unfortunately the piece was written by a staff writer. I have added ‎Blackknight12's source explaining the caste system (thank you for finding it) and changed the wording to remove "was noted". I also linked to the caste system as clearly it has bearing on the subject and shows that is wasn't just the marriage of nobility to commoner, but their actual policies transformed the social structure. I just briefly introduced the topic here, as later down, I had already explained how her changes reconfigured power. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Hang on a minute (sorry, I know this is dragging on a bit); if the "breaking down barriers" was because of their policies in government, this should be in "political career", or better still, in "legacy"...

  Can we leave this one hanging until you finish? As I said, it is an introduction here for their "couplehood", since she initially mirrored his policies and if the article simply addresses her implementation, he gets no credit. What she actually implemented, and what he devised, were not the same, but they stemmed from his ideas. I think, when you finish the article review, you will have a better sense of the development of the topic of transformation. I added a bit to the legacy section.SusunW (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, I moved it. SusunW (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, who dubbed it the wedding of the century?

  Widely reported that way in the press. Added "by the press". SusunW (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Mental Asylum" is an anachronism; can we translate this, or provide a link, or something?

   Done SusunW (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Many of the organizations she served in should be linkable; depending on the depth of the source material, redlinks may be appropriate for others.

  No articles on any of them that I could find to link to. I added red links for several. The cancer society I did not link, pretty self-explanatory. I also did not link the nurse's organization as I find no sources with that particular name and there were multiple organizations, colonial, overseas, All-Ceylon, etc. and I have no idea if this was a separate organization or one that merged into one of the others. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• One more point here: Lanka Mahila Samiti needs a translation, I think. You can choose whether or not you want the non-English name also.

  Can't help you there. No clue and all the sources I found call it that. Google translate gives nada. Maybe as Blackknight12 is actually from Sri Lanka, they can help? SusunW (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, well I have done a bunch of research, there are Mahila Samiti organizations in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, in other words throughout the region. I found it in Bengali script মহিলা সমিতি, which translates as female Association. This is not scholarly, but says the word origin of Mahila is Sanskrit and means woman. So, I think it is safe to translate into the Lankan Women's Association. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  That seems fine to me. Vanamonde (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• "was elected to – the House of Representatives for the Attanagalla Electoral District". I think you mean from the Attanagalla Electoral district; didn't want to correct it myself in case that was not true.

   Done (by the by, source does state "from"). SusunW (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• "As Ceylon moved toward self-governing status in 1947" I think we should be able to find a link to help readers unfamiliar with this process, but I'm not finding anything at the moment...any ideas?

  linked to Sri Lankan independence movement SusunW (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency between "Attanagalla" and "Attanagalle"

  Only found one instance, clearly a typo and fixed. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think if you introduce an acronym for SLFP (which is okay, because it's how the party's known) you should stick to that abbreviation, and not use "Freedom Party"; I've changed one instance, but there may be others.

  In the previous GA you reviewed for me, you stated that acronyms should not be used. I concurred, especially in this instance, as the article is lengthy, there are so many parties involved and unless one is knowledgeable about Sri Lankan politics keeping the parties straight is confusing. When I started the re-write, all the parties were acronyms and I had a heck of a time trying to figure out who the players were, what groups made up the coalitions, etc. Your case against their use was reinforced by trying to sort the parties out in this article. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Okay, fair. I did say that; I thought you may want to use the acronym here because of how often it would appear in the article, but I'm happier if it isn't used. Really the point is that two different abbreviations (Freedom Party and SFLP) should not both be used.

  I wanted to reference SLFP as it is often seen that way, but I consistently used Freedom Party throughout. I have changed the one instance you altered back to Freedom Party. SusunW (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think this section could benefit from a slight reorganization: after "Sirima Bandaranaike devoted most of her time to raising her family and playing hostess to her husband's many political acquaintances," place the two sentences about her children's education. Also, move the two sentences beginning "She often accompanied him..." to the beginning of paragraph 3. This makes it a more logical flow, IMO, but feel free to suggest something else (or disagree).

   Done SusunW (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Political career

• "unanimously elected President of the Freedom Party" Who were the electors here? Do we know? Different countries and parties have very different procedures...in some cases it's all MPs, in some all members...if there's no info, that's fine.

  by the executive committee of the party. Added. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why is ref 46 placed after "campaigning"?

  ?? Because the source says she was campaigning in June, even though she hadn't yet decided whether she was running. That seemed interesting to me, or at least different, as in the US and Mexico, non-candidates do not campaign. SusunW (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Oh I see. Well, it's not contentious, so I moved the ref to the end of the sentence.

• The question of Tamils in Sri Lanka is a contentious one, and so in covering related material I think we need to devote a sentence or two more of background than we might otherwise. In this case, we need to make it clear that while the British brought over a number of Tamils as estate workers, there were a large number of native Tamils, too. Also, the phrase "and to demonstrate tolerance for the estate Tamils" is rather ambiguous in this context. What does the source say?

  I added a preface to cover native Tamils and clarified that the estate Tamils were the ones that were considered temporary. I added a sentence to clarify his position to allow them to use their own language and practice their faith. SusunW (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  Much better.

• "Opponents derisively dismissed her with sexist comments about her "kitchen cabinet"." I get what you're saying, but the triple negative is overkill; I'd even say it undermines the basic point. I'd go with something like "leading opponents to make derisive statements about her "kitchen cabinet", unless the source explicitly says "sexist", in which case I'd substitute that for "derisive".

  Source says "derisively called her 'kitchen cabinet.' Valiantly battling sexism, sexualization, and political machinations, this 'weeping widow' was described a decade later as 'the only man in her cabinet.'" I thought I'd toned down the language a lot from the source :) but in light of your observation, I've changed it to "Opponents dismissed her with sexist comments" SusunW (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've reworded a little, see if you're happy with it.

  It's fine. SusunW (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Following a Socialist platform, her policies aimed to eliminate barriers to equal access by making the government more representative of – and responsive to – those it governed." If this sentence belongs in the article at all, it should be in the legacy section. As a descriptor of policy, it's really meaningless, I'm afraid.

  I sort of moved it, shortened it and combined it with the bit above about their transformation of society. It was the classlessness of socialism that they brought to the country that transformed the caste system, so it seemed to me that putting socialist policies in that part of the article made sense. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

  See comment above; I think stuff about larger impact should be placed in legacy.

   Done SusunW (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency between "Singhalese" and "Sinhalese".

  Only found one instance, and corrected it. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think we should mention the constituency she was elected to

  Which section are you working? Basically she served the Attanagalla Electoral District until it was dissolved and replaced by the Gampaha Electoral District effective in 1982. Since her civil rights were suspended at that time, I guess, technically for her it was effective with the 1988 election. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, should have said: "Leader of the opposition (1965–1970)". I don't think it's made explicit that when she left the senate that she was elected to the Attanagalla constituency, though I may have missed this.

   Done SusunW (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Lanka Sama Samaja Party" and any other parties should be linked at first use.

   Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• "She introduced innovations requiring... " "innovations" is odd here. Surely "policy" would be more usual?

   Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's worth mentioning that the Dominion to Republic switch meant Sri Lanka was no longer under the Queen of England.

  Okay, had to find a ref. ;)  Done SusunW (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks. It's something that I've found is surprisingly not common knowledge.

• "a petition challenging her position as a member of parliament was dismissed." I think we need to mention who dismissed this, or drop this sentence, if that information isn't available.

  added "by the Colombo High Court".  Done SusunW (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• "From 1980, conflict became more frequent and increasingly violent." I think you mean conflict with the separatists, but that isn't completely clear, and could be made explicit.

   Done SusunW (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Arumugam Thiagarajah, the United National Party candidate" candidate for what? President? Parliament?

  Ross & Savada on page 55 say "Shortly before the elections the leading candidate of the UNP was assassinated as he left a political rally." This source says he was killed in Moolai, which is in the Jaffna Electoral District. This says "S Thiyagarajah, former principal of Karainagar Hindu College and former MP for Vaddukoddai, who headed the UNP list of candidates". They got his name wrong, but the principal and former MP stuff matches with the previous source. None indicates to me whether that run was for Parliament or what. However, the new constitution creating a presidency had been adopted in 1978 and J. R. Jayawardene was elected president for a six year term. Logic tells me then it wasn't for president. This tells me that the 1st session of Parliament ended 26 March 1982, thus it also logically follows that he was campaigning as an MP. Do I have a document that says that, no, thus, I think it would be OR (or Synth) to state that, unless it is so obvious that it could be called common knowledge. Your thoughts? SusunW (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps simply describe him as a prominent UNP politician, and leave the candidature out; that way the basic point is conveyed in a concise manner.

   Done SusunW (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• "separatists, now known as the Tamil Tigers..." I don't think it's as simple as that. AFAIK the LTTE were by far the largest and best known of the separatists, but I do not believe the entire movement morphed into the LTTE. So unless the source explicitly says so, I think you need to rephrase.

  I get that its complicated (and the use of acronyms makes it moreso, what pray tell is AFAIK?). I've reworked the section. Advise. SusunW (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Much better, thanks (AFAIK is As Far As I Know :) )

  LCOMC (Literally choked on my coffee) as I laughed out loud. SusunW (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1990, when the 13-month ceasefire was broken by insurgents..." It would be helpful to mention both which insurgents these were, and which ceasefire this was (the same one involving the IPKF?)

  Clarified other militias gave up weapons but not the Tamil Tigers. The source doesn't say specifically. It says the Indian Peace Keeping Force spent 2 years trying to get them to lay down their arms. The agreement with the Indians initiated in 1987, thus by 1989 they were out of the picture. But, the peace was broken in June 1990. Math to get back to 13 months, implies that it was negotiated by them, but the source doesn't say that, which leans into OR in my mind. SusunW (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• "When emergency powers were granted, she demanded that they be lifted." What emergency powers? Granted by whom?

  Sri Lankan Civil Law p 3 gives the president that authority, but source says only "by the Government". However, I believe it is standard that a state of emergency declaration belongs to the executive, sometimes later requiring legislative approval. See revision.

  Perhaps we can say "assumed" emergency powers, as that's what your link suggests?

   Done SusunW (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• "to challenge in the Western Province of Sri Lanka in May." This seems colloquial: I would suggest "to contest the 1993 provincial election in the Western Province".

   Done SusunW (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Wijetunga was nominated to complete the president's unexpired term". This is a bit confusing; if he was nominated, why was there an election at all? Or are you saying the constitution required a fresh election after an assassination, in which Wijetunga was the UNP candidate?

  If I read the Sri Lankan Constitution correctly, if a president dies in office the PM steps in temporarily until an election can be held. pp 21-23 The Parliament then decides "the procedure for the election of the President". According to the source the Parliament, not the electorate, were to be the voters in this specific instance. Added text, advise.

  Okay, that makes sense. I've shuffled the sentences, it's fine now, I think.

• Related: "Due to her failing health, Bandaranaike continued as opposition leader," sounds contradictory. Depending on your answer above, it may be clearer as "...failing health, Bandaranaike chose not to contest the 1993 election.."

  See modifications. SusunW (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Images

• Many of the images are captioned rather oddly; I wonder if you could go over all of them...we don't need her first name in most places, for instance, and the first caption should say "furthest right in back row" (or whatever) rather than "3", which is confusing.

   Done SusunW (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Okay, so I fully recognize this is a tricky section, because we want to recognize Bandaranaike's impact, which was huge. That said, I'm a bit concerned that at the moment, this relies a little too much on cliche. I think this can be sorted out by trimming some of the other information, and then fleshing out her legacy with information from obituaries, and from scholarly sources if they are available. I'd suggest one short paragraph (possibly with some quotes) about her election as the first female prime minister, and another about her policy; that's just a suggestion, though. The LA Times obituary has some decent material.

  I've done a bit of rewrite on it, but am going to ping Alanna the Brave as she took on this section of the article in the rewrite. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• And I really do feel the "socialist policies they enacted" from the family section needs to be moved here.

   Done SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• In the meantime, though; I think there's some redundancy and not directly irrelevant information, too. Chandrika and Anura's roles in government have been covered in detail above; I think those could be abbreviated to something like "All three of her children held nationally prominent positions; in addition to Anura and Chandrika's roles in government, her daughter Sunetra..etc".

   Done SusunW (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Similarly, the information in the last paragraph is really not terribly relevant, because it's commentary on gender disparity in Sri Lanka, and not so much on Bandaranaike's own influence.

  I'm also going to disagree to some extent with you on this paragraph. Judging her legacy from a political perspective, without feminist critique, leaves the question of whether her tenure made any lasting difference for women unanswered. If it did not make lasting impact, it sort of shatters the Great man theory, as being applicable to women. I'll leave it up to Alanna. SusunW (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  In principle, I agree that feminist critique is necessary. But we're limited by the source material here. What's currently in the paragraph is critique by other members of the government of government policy and/or party policy; and it's Wikipedia that's linking this to Bandaranaike, which is a little dodgy. If we had an independent source examining women's rights in Sri Lanka fifty years after Bandaranaike (or whatever) that would be something worthy of inclusion, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Hi Vanamonde93 -- thanks for all your work here. I've been watching the GA review unfold with interest. Here are my thoughts on the legacy section: I have to agree with SusunW that we need SOME discussion of Bandaranaike's impact on gender equality in Sri Lanka. She's known for being the world's first female elected head of government, but it's hard to know what this means (should we care?) unless you examine the question of whether her political career actually changed anything for women, particularly in Sri Lanka. This being said, I agree that the current paragraph is somewhat limited by the source material (I couldn't find much on this aspect of her legacy, which personally surprised me). I think we should keep the paragraph, but we could at least trim it by eliminating the 2016 bill & 2018 election info (which had the least direct connection to Bandaranaike). Additionally, if you're open to waiting 3-4 days, I'll make one more attempt to locate independent sources that directly discuss Bandaranaike's impact (or lack of) on gender equality in Sri Lanka. I'm busy with real-world work today, but I'll have more time to tackle this on Wednesday and Thursday, and there are still some books/articles I haven't checked yet. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Alanna the Brave: I, too, agree we should be discussing Bandaranaike's impact on gender equality; I just don't think the current paragraph is doing that. What's there right now is mostly about parliament's failings after her death. I'm happy to give you as much time as you need; there's also a lot of other stuff to deal with in this section, too (see my comments above). Vanamonde (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  If you're okay with waiting, then, I'll revisit this section in a few days and see what improvements I can make. Alanna the Brave (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, let me be a little more specific here. In the current revision, the first paragraph is just fine. I'm not too happy with the first sentence of the second; I think this is too general, and could be fleshed out. Rest of that paragraph is fine. Third paragraph: I'm not too happy with "Bandaranaike led the country to break free of its colonial past," which again seems to say a lot but actually is rather vague. I'm similarly unhappy with the phrases "Bandaranaike navigated the divided world stage and successfully brought Sri Lanka to prominence" and "As an agent of peace, she strove to forge lasting alliances". All of those contain words I would describe as puffery (nothing personal, you know that). The first half of the last paragraph is fine; The bit beginning "By 2017, only 5.7 per...", however, strikes me as SYNTH, and I'd recommend just appending "such a bill was passed in 2016" to the previous. If you wish to add more material explicitly analyzing Bandaranaike's impact on gender in Sri Lanka (or even examining gender in Sri Lanka while making a real link to Bandaranaike's role) that would be fine: I don't think the current material does that.

  There is a reason I never write something as significant as Bandaranaike without lots of input from editors like Ian and Alanna who are able to go behind me and work out how to say what I mean :) I am good at the research and fairly competent in crafting the body. Not so good at the lede and summary and awful with photos. I take full responsibility for the puffy statements, and have no problem with you calling me out for them. Hopefully Alanna can fix it, as she has a lot of skill editing my ramblings :) SusunW (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  Update: I've found at least two sources that look promising. I'll start editing the death/legacy section tomorrow. :-) Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Okay -- I've trimmed, expanded, and attempted to edit some of the wording in the legacy section as per overall discussion above. Vanamonde93 and SusunW, what do you think? Is it looking better now? Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  @Alanna the Brave: Thanks: that looks much better. I've taken a swipe at the prose, please let me know if there's a change you don't like. I'll work on wrapping this up, meanwhile. Vanamonde (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds good! I've got no objections to your edits. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry, been at the doctors all day. Thank you both for working on it. Looks good! SusunW (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The sources used here are generally of high quality, and at the GA level I'm not going to flag any of them. If you wish to take this to FAC, which would be a non-trivial but worthwhile undertaking, there are a few that would probably need replacing; the "dangerouswomenproject" blog source (not a problem here because it's used only for the author's opinions, and those authors are weighty enough that their opinion is worthwhile) and the "socialist India" source, which is a partisan source (literally; it's an organ of the Indian National Congress, historically the largest Indian political party). Other sources that you could consider replacing are the small-town newspapers that are not unreliable as such, but are likely parroting some better known source. Vanamonde (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Never taken an article to FAC. I'm sure if someone decides to take it to FAC, they will order in the books which are inaccessible to me in Mexico, thus possibly having the ability to replace some of the sourcing like Socialist India. I used it because I think it brings sharper focus and balance to an internationally known figure to have views from inside and outside the country, from partisan press and non-partisan press. One simply must verify with multiple other sources to confirm neutrality is maintained. All the historic clippings may have appeared in local journals but I noted the various agencies, AP, UPI, Reuters, etc. Thus, it is clear what their source was, which doesn't remotely make them non-reliable or in need of replacement by newspapers with larger circulation. SusunW (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Did some spot-checks: most sources check out. One issue I found; the LA Times source does mention that she narrowly lost the 1988 election, but it doesn't say to whom, and the article does; I'm sure of the many other sources cover this, so it should be easy to duplicate one of them.

   Done SusunW (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• So the lead says "first definitive non-hereditary female head of state or government". The body says nothing of the kind. Do we need all the qualifiers? Do we have a source for all the qualifiers?

   Done I told you the lede and legacy were hardest for me ;) I didn't write that. I found a source and added it to the body. Took out first definitive, see no reason for the superlatives. SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• "she exacerbated discontent among the estate Tamils, who had become stateless under the Citizenship Act of 1948" this is true, but the language issue affected all the Tamils, not just the estate ones; I think some reworking of this and the next sentence would be helpful.

  Added "native" with a link to the first and "because of her nationalist policies aimed at elevating Sinhalese culture" to the end of the second. Does that work? SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• "was stripped of her civil rights in 1980" I think we should say why, regardless of how justified the charges were; in isolation, this sounds very odd.

   Done SusunW (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

General

Vanamonde93, I think I have addressed the points to here. I really do appreciate your thoroughness. SusunW (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, and thanks for the replies. What little time I had today was sucked up by the black hole that is the ref desk troll (if you don't know whereof I speak, be thankful). I'll return to this in 12 hours or so. Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm working on another bio. I stay far to busy to deal with trolls and black holes, and am glad I have no idea what that is. :) SusunW (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nitpicks aside, I think you've done a great job here, SusunW; this is an enormous topic, so the length of my commentary is not really a reflection on your work. I hope to wrap this up soonish. Vanamonde (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Vanamonde93. Couldn't have done it without the help of a great team. I always say I learn as much as I impart. Knowing nothing of Sri Lankan politics beyond the fact that it was a former colony, both helped and hindered the re-write, as I had no perspective. Your commentary as ever, has significantly improved the presentation. I think I have answered everything, but please ping me if there is anything further. Hopefully Alanna can address your remaining concerns on the legacy section. SusunW (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@SusunW and Alanna the Brave: I think that's the last of my comments: I'll pass this as soon as they've been sorted. Vanamonde (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Again let me express my appreciation for all of the effort you have put into this review. If there is anything I have missed, please advise. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's everything. Thanks again for a great article, and it's been my pleasure to review it. If you're wondering why I've going around switching the indenting, it's for accessibility reasons. I have been told that if bullets are being used, followup comments should be indented "*:::" rather than ":::*", and that bulleted and unbulleted indenting shouldn't be mixed. This has nothing to do with the article, only with making the review readable to anyone who might come by. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Maintaining quality is essential

Hirunika Balasuriya 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[2], that the excessive borrowing of the regime created inflation and reduced the purchasing power of citizens and investors.[3] The few gains that were made in manufacturing did not stimulate economic growth or investment[4] and there was a severe food crisis, high unemployment, and low capacity utlization.[5] 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)

Hirunika Balasuriya 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

@SusunW: 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)

Cossde 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)

@SusunW: 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)

Cossde 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.[6],[7],[8] 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)

SusunW 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)

Cossde 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.[9] 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.[10] (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)

Neopeius 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: Jeyaraj, D.B.S. "How C.P. de Silva Crossed Over With 13 MP's From SLFP Governmenton Dec 3rd 1964". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
• From Esmond Wickremesinghe: Jeyaraj, D.B.S. "How C.P. de Silva Crossed Over With 13 MP's From SLFP Governmenton Dec 3rd 1964". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 25 June 2020.

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)