Talk:Ingrid Detter de Frankopan

Fürst Frankopan

The Frankopan family had the title of prince (Fürst ) before that of count (https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Stammtafel_des_kroatischen_Fürsten-Adelsgeschlechts_Frankopan, https://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Frankopan). RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Family Name Controversy

Someone has copied and pasted the same two lengthy and rather biased paragraphs disparaging the Frankopan family for their use of the surname - and claiming that their cousin is trying to "save the reputation of his family name" by disavowing their use of it - into the Wikipedia entries for Dr. de Frankopan and her two eldest children, Peter Frankopan and Lady Nicholas Windsor. This appears to be a personal agenda against the family and not unbiased encyclopedia-worthy content; it has little to do with the lives or accomplishments of any of the three subjects, being entirely about an action taken by Dr. de Frankopan's husband (father of Peter and Lady Windsor).

These two irrelevant paragraphs currently make up most of Dr. de Frankopan's entry; indeed, I am not sure she merits an entry at all if this and a list of her children is all there is to say about her.

I have considerably trimmed down the paragraphs in Peter Frankopan's entry and would recommend (at the very least) doing the same here; this controversy is not worthy of more than a cursory mention (if any at all), and certainly not in the very biased way it is presented. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, a short paragraph which would link to the Frankopan family#Doimi de Lupis's name claiming section is enough, but as you already mentioned, I would advise starting a deletion process because of lack of WP:N. The paragraph's information is not biased, this a serious falsification which they tried to use for personal gain. There's no agenda against them, they made it themselves. They want to rewrite history, take the identity of a noble family with which they don't have anything in common, take their supposed noble titles (an unlawful act that would have been punished with prison in the 19th century Austrian Empire) and so on, see here. If anything specific about this controversy should be particularly related and mentioned with Ingrid is that she influenced and gave false information to Luc Orešković, author of Les Frangipani: un exemple de la réputation des lignages au XVIIe siècle en Europe (2003), to prove the existence of "Princes of Doimi de Frankopan", which never existed, altering names on reproduced documents and so on. Ironically, if the subject in question is notable for anything then that is for attempted fraud.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraphs need to be shortened in the other articles, and that this article should be deleted for lack of notability. But I'm afraid it is completely irrelevant that taking a new name was an "unlawful act that would have been punished with prison in the 19th century Austrian Empire" - it is legal now in the United Kingdom, where they live, for people to change their names to whatever they wish and that's all that matters as far as the law is concerned; they are not subject to 19th-century Austrian Empire laws. And your statements about the family contain a great deal of conjecture and bias - saying "they want to rewrite history" and "this is a serious falsification", etc. is not scholarly fact, it is merely personal opinion. It is therefore not relevant to an encyclopedia article, which must be based on facts alone. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said, taking a noble title not a surname was an unlawful act, and my statements are not my statements nor personal opinion, they are scholarly facts, that's why I provided you with a scholarly reference published in a journal of the Croatian Institute of History. It is highly relevant to an encyclopedic article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no difference if you're referring to using a noble title or taking a name - both are equally irrelevant because this is not the 19th century Austrian Empire, and neither one is at all illegal in 21st-century Great Britain. Citing a 200-year-old law from a defunct empire and the archaic punishment it brought back then as proof that their use of a title is 'unlawful' or 'serious' in today's world - or deserves to be included in an encyclopedia article - is, frankly, silly.

I'm afraid that "they want to rewrite history" and "this is a serious falsification" are indeed opinions no matter who has said it. They cannot be considered scholarly facts by any stretch of the imagination.

I looked at the history of edits on the three articles, and other people have tried to delete these comments about the Frankopans before for being irrelevant and biased, only to have you revert their edits. You seem to have a very strong personal interest in this. Are you the original author of the comments? Lilipo25 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to add further here, especially not on WP:PERSONAL, except that she did falsify information to prove a point which cannot be proved. That is not only a scholarly fact but simple truth and reality. If you have any issue with it and want to defend her family's moral integrity, then sorry, that's not our job neither our personal opinion as editors matter. We cite reliable sources and they are clear about the controversy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple editors have agreed that this information is irrelevant and vindictive. It has been removed from all three articles repeatedly. You are the only person who keeps putting it back up, and have been doing so for multiple years, according to the history. Please do not use Wikipedia for personal grudges against subjects. You have not in any way proven that she or any of the Frankopans "falsified evidence"; if you have some proof that they broke the laws of Great Britain in changing their family name, provide it. Otherwise, their choice of family name is simply not of great importance to Wikipedia, as their name is not why they have articles here. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As said before, make one more WP:PERSONAL attack on me, lying that I am reverting this information for years, to have a "personal grudges", lying there's no evidence, you are getting reported to the admins. I do not allow such a lack of WP:GOODFAITH behaviour toward me. Where are these "multiple editors"? It is far from irrelevant, and citing reliable sources has nothing to do with being "vindictive". You are writing ignorant nonsense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: why did you make a revert without proper substantiation? In my talk page you claimed it was removed because it did not have "citation to a reliable source". Explain to me how is this information, directly involving her, reported in reliable mainstream newspaper and scholarly paper, off-topic for the article, and specifically the section "Personal life"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Attack page and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Buying a castle is not relevant to what she is notable for (her scholarship). Nor is changing her name. Even less relevant is what some obsolete club thinks of her. And at least some of pieces you link to are clearly editorials (on whether the same family should be allowed to buy a newspaper), not acceptable as sources per WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I only partly agree, there's perhaps an issue with a more neutral tone although it is supported by reliable sources, but that can be corrected. However, we cannot whitewhash the article to be only about her scholarship, ignoring other information which is obviously relevant when it's reported by reliable sources. Again, it is not only obsolete club neither the club was cited. Where in the editing policy is stated that editorials are not acceptable?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG: "editorials ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". And for the avoidance of primary sources in BLPs, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You are of course correct in your edits, and your efforts to make this article Wikipedia-worthy are much appreciated! I have attempted to do the same with the Frankopan family article, where the lack of NPOV and poor sourcing for these claims is even more extensive, but the same user just reverts the edits immediately. I opened a section on it on the Talk page over there. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)