`  :Given that Heinstein prefers to ignore the discussions I've engaged in above and to fling insults and shabby dimestore innuendo, I'm not going to review his comments in detail. However:  *Heinstein isn't telling the truth when he says I've removed the information about Jenrette's Harvard degree; if you check the edit history, you'll see I've repeatedly added back the specific degree information (which Jenrette herself has for some odd reason deleted on several occasions)  *The key reference in the (Jenrette) family history section (and who really cares which medieval warlords are lurking in her family tree; the number of Wikipedia biographies which include such nonencyclopedic information is all but nil) is a self-published, vanity press book. . It can't be used as a source in a BLP.  *Wikipedia isn't bound by the dictates of the Congress Of Vienna. Nobody else is, so far as I know.  But even according to the sources provided regarding that conclave of oppressors of the common folk, whatever titles were involved went only to the descendants of the then-current royalty, not their descendants' spouses, so there still wouldn't be any reliable source for identify Jenrette as a ``princess.``  *The only sources linking Jenrette's current husband and the titles he claims come from his own website (that genealogy site just republishes user-submitted content, and matches up to his website. The language to which Jenrette and Heinstein object (in particular, the use of ``style`` with respect to titles is standard Wikipedia usage, even extending to reigning royal families, see eg Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant; Iñaki Urdangarín, Duke of Palma de Mallorca; Charles FitzGerald, 4th Duke of Leinster; Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein.  The Princess Sophie article also distinguishes carefully between claimed titles (like Ludovisi's) and legally recognized titles; note also Jaime, Duke of Madrid, where the article text is quite scrupulous on this point.  *If Ludovisi doesn't like being (accurately) as a ``perfume entrepreneur,`` he shouldn't set up a personal website describing his perfume business at length, or issue press releases promoting that business and hawking its products , or give interviews to websites covering the perfume business in general , or announce plans to issue an entire ``series of fragrances.``  It would have been inappropriate, even genuinely derisive, to identify him as the ``unemployed pretender`` to a long-defunct European, throne, there being no apparent evidence that he was otherwise engages in gainful employment. His involvement in the perfume business is the only solidly sourced information about him in any version of the Jenrette article.   *Finally, The Big Bad Wolfowitz notes with malice aforethought, Wikipedia coverage must be balanced and neutral. If the article is going to include Jenrette's glorious colonial ancestors, it must also cover their involvement with slavery and the slave trade; if we're going to cover her husband's claimed noble family and heritage, we must also cover its surprisingly well-documented involvement with Mussolini and the Fascisti.   `