Talk:Sophia Duleep Singh

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sophia Duleep Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130919041018/http://www.duleepsingh.com:80/Biography.aspx?evid=24 to http://www.duleepsingh.com/Biography.aspx?evid=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dog ownership

In the book Dog Shows and Doggy People (1902) (available at archive.org) there is a short section and an out of copyright portrait photo of her on pages 92 to 94. Miyagawa (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'Pioneer' of suffragette movement?

In the section Later life and activism, it states:

In 1909, she pioneered the cause of the "suffragette movement" for women's voting rights.

I question the strength of her claim to be a pioneer, as Pankhurst's organization, the WSPU, was in being in 1903, and Millicent Fawcett's umbrella organization of suffragist societies had been formed in 1897. It is not clear how early in life Singh's own interest in the issue came about. The phrase may have been used in the source quoted as citation but I would say, "Don't just take their word for it".Cloptonson (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cloptonson: I agree (based on what I remember from a Stuff You Missed in History Class podcast). IIRC, she was a leader in the movement, but "pioneer" implies that she started it, which I don't think was the case. I'll look for some more sources. —PermStrump(talk) 17:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Right now the article refers to Singh variously by her first or her last name. WP:LASTNAME says royalty should be referred to by their surname or by title (Princess Sophia or the Princess). Currently, the article primarily refers to her by "Sophia" alone, and sometimes by "Singh", so I'd like to update it to one of the preferred styles and be consistent. Does anyone have a strong preference? I guess I'm leaning towards "Princess Sophia" since other family members with the same last name are mentioned frequently throughout the article. Thoughts? —PermStrump(talk) 17:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Since you've been editing the article recently, do you have an opinion? If not, I'll go with "Princess Sophia". —PermStrump(talk) 14:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 14:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I am going to take a look at performing a GA review for this article. I'll be hoping to get up a full review for you sometime tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	*Infobox Under full name it currently states "Princess Sophia Alexandra Duleep Singh", surely her name isn't princess, that's her title isn't it? This was changed earlier by another user. I would prefer not to use the title. If you agree I will change it everywhere. Feel free to remove the title from the article., preferably, leave the first instance of it and the line "Her title, Princess, was useful." but feel free to remove the rest. Deleted as suggested except the line "Her title, Princess, was useful." Lede "She had four sisters (including two stepsisters) and four brothers." -> She had four sisters, including two stepsisters, and four brothers. Corrected "she also participated in other women's suffrage groups (including the Women's Social and Political Union)." -> she also participated in other women's suffrage groups, including the Women's Social and Political Union. Corrected as suggested Early Life "Bamba was the daughter of a German merchant banker with Todd Müller and Company by Sofia, his mistress of Abyssinian descent." Corrected Mildly confused, Bamba is the daughter of a German merchant banker and Sofia, his mistress? in which case, Bamba was the daughter of a German merchant banker, with Todd Müller and Company, and his mistress Sofia, who was of Abyssinian descent. Made more clear [5][6][4] -> [4][5][6], it seems logical to go in numerical order. Is there a reason for this usual ordering? This happens several times throughout the article. Numbers rearranged wherever required "reconverting to Sikhism in later life" -> reconverting to Sikhism later in life. "when he realised that he had lost a large empire by deceit and espousing the freedom movement in India." Amending my original comment here; is it that he started espousing the freedom movement in India because he lost his "large empire"? if so then perhaps -> when he realised that he had lost a large empire by deceit, and began to espouse the freedom movement in India because of it. Or. In London, Duleep Singh converted to Christianity, reconverting to Sikhism in later life and espousing the freedom movement in India when he realised that he had lost a large empire through deceit. I have used the suggested last sentence "Her mother (who was attending her) contracted the disease" -> Her mother, who was attending her, contracted the disease... Corrected "whom he had known, on 31 May 1889;[1] they had two daughters." ->whom he had known on 31 May 1889 and with whom he would have two daughters. Corrected "Singh's brothers included Frederick Duleep Singh; her two blood sisters were another suffragette, Catherine Duleep Singh, and Bamba Duleep Singh." I have absolutely no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me. Corrected "She chain-smoked 600 Turkish tobacco cigarettes a month, and advertised her Columbia Model 41 Ladies Safety Bicycle." <- and the relevance of this is? it seems like unnecessary trivia, not everything needs to be mentioned in an article. Deleted "She made a secret trip to India with her sister, Bamba, to attend the 1903 Delhi Durbar (where she was snubbed)." <- snubbed how, prevented from entering or ignored or what? Used "ignored" Achievements and Death I made a very minor addition of a single word in the death section. Otherwise, these two sections clear GA1a. All of the relevant corrections have been made in these sections, only thing left is to decide what to do about the title. I will be doing a second re-read of Early Life as that had the most issues, the other sections I didn't come across any problems with. Reading through the early life section, I've noticed a few patterns which I'll note below; 1. Extensive use of brackets where they are not needed, a choice example "She made a secret trip to India with her sister, Bamba, to attend the 1903 Delhi Durbar (where she was snubbed)." 2. The writing drifts from one talking point to another weirdly, I had trouble following parts of the article and I think this is partly because of unnecessary over inclusion. For example, in the early life section there is a great deal of talk about what her brothers, sitsers and family are doing, while parts of this are relevant, parts really aren't. I'll be revisiting this section tomorrow and will try to identify key points and possibly note out some unnecessary sections. Perhaps I'll have greater clarity on a second reading. Will be glad to address any further issues That said, this is looking to be an excellent article and I do applaud the effort that has been made to write it out. I am finding this topic, one that I am not usually interested in, to be quite enjoyable to read. I just think it may need some copy-editing in the mean time. I'll also note, a couple of my comments above are personal nitpicks (such as the ordering of sources). I'll be adding more here as I look at it in more depth later. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Properly structured; headings are good, paragraphs are structured well (there are a couple mini paragraphs but that's fine), the overall layout is clean and I didn't come across any problem words with the structure.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All of the sources used are presented appropriately.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reliable sources are used throughout the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything in the article has been cited to a source. The sources used are of repute and reliable for this article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwigs copyright violator rates it unlikely with a confidence of 21.3%. I'll be taking a look at individual sources as well. I haven't come across any copyright issues. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Will address issues if any.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article does indeed address the most important aspects of the topic, covering the subject of the article's life, career, achievements and death.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays primarily focused on the topic, drifting only slightly in parts, I figure by the end of the copy-editing that this criteria will have been met. As I had suspected, with the majority of GA1 issues being cleared up the article is now better focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is delivered in a generally neutral tone and without weaseling of words.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most definitely, hasn't been touched since the 1st of July and there aren't any outstanding complaints or disputes on the article's talk page, the naming issue appears to have been dealt with, use of last name Singh is prominent throughout the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The first image is fine in terms of copyright, however, the second image titled "File:Bamba, Catherine and Sophia.jpg" does not indicate why it is in the public domain in the USA. This is an issue that needs to be cleared up before the GA review is over. In this case with the image issues resolved, 6a has beet met.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The Both images are is definitely appropriate to the article. but one lacks the correct PD tag or CC tag, whichever applies (refer above). The second img is probably not usable in USA. I will remove it if you consider it not suitable for use in the article. I would have thought that it would be, given it was published before 1923. I have removed this img
	7. Overall assessment.	The occasional minor issue, it shouldn't take too long to fix.

I'll be using the above table for my review, all of my comments will be found inside the boxes and I'll be looking to tick them off one by one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude Thanks for the review. I have replied in the table wherever required. Will be glad to any other issues.Nvvchar. 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions:

• One of your sources, which you site often, refers to Singh by the name of Princess Sophia Alexdrowna Duleep Singh whereas in the article you have written Princess Sophia Alexandra Duleep Singh.

This was corrected as per GOC. In all other related articles in WP she is referred as Sophia Alexandra.

Ah, fair enough, that's perfectly fine. Many older biographies have varieties on a single name. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nvvchar, you mention that you have corrected some of the points I bring up. Are you editing on a sandbox page since there do not appear to have been any edits to the article since my own yesterday and today? Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude Sorry, my earlier edits somehow did not get saved. I have redone the corrections and savedNvvchar. 04:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for that, it's perfectly fine, these things happen. I only asked because I note that you have a lot of sandbox pages, you may want to take a look through them as many appear to be empty or unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I write two to three articles every day on Wikipedia and United Nations Women Projectand I use these sandboxes for my first draft before transferring the text to main space.Nvvchar. 04:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, all good, I just thought that with about 10 different sandboxes you wouldn't need all of them. In any case, aside from the title question (Princess) which I'll leave to you and the copyright issue with second image in the article, this article is just about at GA. On the topic of the second image, it was originally published in 1893 and should be in the public domain of the US. I'll do a quick check for it though. I'll add the PD tag to the image. Before I do that. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, since you're better with images than I am; the second image on this article was originally taken in 1892 and would be in the public domain in the US. The question I have, if somebody takes a photo of the image, and publishes it in an article or book or whatever which is copyrighted, is that image still PD despite it having being taken from a copyrighted source? I think it would be because it's not possible to copyright a PD object but does it fall under derivative work? Hope that makes sense. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If the image is PD, simply reproducing the image doesn't change that - if it's still the same image, it's still PD. See PD-scan.

That being said, while I'm here - neither image description includes the necessary information to support the given tags. If the authors are unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? What was the first publication of the second image? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Are both images a problem? the first one was published in 1913 for the first time, according to the image description page, so it ought to be PD, but, I can't find any support for this on the actual image description page. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria though, this supports the claim, as do other pages on google. Also, it's copyrighted, by the Museum of London... may be a problem. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

If they're to be hosted on Commons, they need to be PD/freely licensed in both the US and their country of origin. The first image has tags for both, but unless we know the author and his/her date of death we can't verify the life+70 tag. The second image has two tags for non-US locales, neither of which is supported by the given information. Yes, it was taken before 1900, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was published then. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude In view of above discussions, I have retained the first img and deleted the second which has two tags. I have also removed the title in the infobox and in the text except at one place as mentioned earlier. Thanks.Nvvchar. 15:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Correction, first instance and the place which I mentioned. I suggest leaving the first instance because it's a royal title and it's also used in reference to her sisters, Princess Bamba and Princess Catherine. I'll re-instate the first reference to it as a minor edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, since you are the original uploader of the image on this article, do you have any way of confirming that the correct licensing tags have been applied to the image? It appears that while the image is PD in the US it might not be PD in the UK where this image was originally taken (and published). This is because the life +70 years tag cannot be verified as the author of the image is unknown and therefore his/her date of death is also unknown. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, this may be of some importance, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." is one of the cases where the use of non-free content is allowed. I will be taking a look for a possible substitute image that is clearly in the PD if I can find one. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This photograph was published in 1913. It's safe to assume that the photographer is deceased else s/he'd now be the oldest person in the world. For unknown authors of published works in the UK, the copyright expires 70 years after first publication: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Anonymous_works#United_Kingdom . No photographer credits have been noted for this photograph in the ODNB either.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, I see, I was not aware that that was the case in the UK. Given that in the US it's the life of the author and then another 70 years on top, i.e. if the author died in 1950 then the copyright will not expire until 2020. As such, this image may not be PD in the US (assuming it were published in the US). Now since the image was published in 1913 this isn't a problem since anything published before 1923 is considered PD in the US (hence the tag). Fair enough, in this case the image is fine and assumed to be in the PD. Thanks for responding. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Nvvchar, I am satisfied that this article meets the GA criterion and will be passing the article now. Thanks for the contributions you have made to the article and the GA review. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Mr rnddude Thanks for all your efforts you made to get one img retained in the article. Thank you also very much for its GA upgrade. It has been done really fast. As I do not get a message of GA approvals automatically on my talk page, may I request you to leave message of its approval on my talk page.Nvvchar. 11:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah sure, I'll leave on right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction between infobox and 'Early life' section

The infobox states that Sophia Duleep Singh was born at Elveden Hall, whereas the 'Early life' section mentions Belgravia. According to this listed source she actually was born in Belgravia and raised at Elveden, so perhaps that's the reason for this confusion. This article, another of the listed sources, also mentions that Sophia Duleep Singh grew up at Elveden Hall, but doesn't mention her birthplace. Peolon7 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The ODNB says she was born "probably at Elveden Hall". DuncanHill (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sophia Duleep Singh's Religion?

Like her siblings, Sophia would have been raised as an Angilican Protestant, so I don't think it's appropriate to state that Sophia's religion is "Sikhism".

Her last will did state that she wished to be cremated "per Sikh rites", but I don't think this is equivalent to practicing Sikhi. AnyBurro9312 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)