# Talk:Sophia Duleep Singh

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)