Talk:Rita Jenrette

message: I have noticed the discussion on the validity of the title of Prince born by Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi and of that of Prince of Piombino. The view taken here that the use of European titles is somehow improper and that therefore their bearers should be ridiculed, or at best referred to as styled, displays a mistaken and factually incorrect view of history and, indeed, the present day legal treatment of such titles. It seems that the editor of the page on Prince Nicolo’s wife does not accept that her husband should be given the title Prince on the pages of Wikipedia – although he is so referred to on other parts of the English language Wikipedia and also in other language Wiki sites. Such an attitude reflects a personal bias that is inappropriate in a source which purports to be authoritative. 
The first point is that these titles were created by lawful authorities with the right to pass to descendants according to various forms. In the case of the title of Prince Boncompagni-Ludovisi, the Holy Roman Empire was a lawful authority, the title was created according to the proper forms and passed to all descendants in the male line (and to females until marriage). There has never been any form of retroactive law to repeal the grant of this or any other Holy Roman Empire title and indeed, since the abolition of the Empire in 1806, no body exists that could effect such abolition. The title of Prince of Piombino was granted as an immediate sovereign fief of the same Empire and continued to be held by the heirs of the first grantee, but as a feudatory along with Elba, of the Crown of Naples, after passing to the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family by inheritance, until Piombino was confiscated by the French in 1799. It was then promised to be returned to the Boncompagni-Ludovisi heirs at the Congress of Vienna but, instead, was ultimately incorporated into Tuscany (Article 100 of the Acts of the Congress of Vienna of 9 June 1815), with the title of Prince of Piombino consistently recognised for the head of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family by the Powers. This title descends by male primogeniture (as do the other Boncompagni-Ludovisi titles of Prince of Venosa and Duke of Sora and Arce, etc).
These titles have never been abolished; the Italian Republic does not recognise their use but has not attempted to deprive the descendants of the grantees of such titles of their titles, which have never been abolished or suppressed in Italian law – Italian law merely provides that they cannot be used in official documents as they are not recognised; despite, this a junior member of the family who received the grand cross of Merit of the Italian Republic was accorded the use of the title prince in the diploma and on the official web site of the Order of Merit.  The Italian Republic does recognise legal predicati, and those of the Princes Boncompagni-Ludovisi, including that of Piombino. 
The Holy See, however, continues to recognise titles granted by past Popes and, indeed, these and other titles granted by lawful authority are used at the Papal Court. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta whose sovereign status is recognised by 103 states, including Italy, also recognises legitimately accorded noble titles and uses them in official acts (and members of the Boncompagni-Ludovisio family who are knights of Malta have been accorded the title of Prince on their diploma and in other official acts). 
GuyStairSainty (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your contribution. I've changed the article accordingly. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 13:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm changing it back. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and just having somebody post on the talk page, insisting his own self-published website is reliable, posting a personal attack on an editor who disagrees with him, and ignoring all elements of the discussion that don't help his argument isn't good enough -- not to mention trying to purge the article of its only solidly documented facts regarding the individual in question.  It's too bad that Jenrette and her friends don't like conforming to Wikipedia's requirements regarding verifiability and reliability sources, but that desn't provide any basis for setting them aside. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how your version is any better sourced.  The Boncompagni-Ludovisi family's existence and descent from the princes of Piombino is easily discoverable in any source on European royal/noble genealogy, and we normally call people by how they call themselves - note a rather large number of articles on the German nobility, for example.  Sainty's site may not be a proper reliable source, but he knows what he's talking about on royalty/nobility related subjects, and I see no reason to dismiss his arguments so cavalierly.  Especially since the edit you reverted consisted merely of calling the guy "Prince," which seems perfectly appropriate, and taking out some nonsense which implies that he isn't actually descended from the family which ruled Piombino.  The only sources provided in either version do in fact refer to him as a prince. It's one thing to revert material sourced to something that's not technically a reliable source when the previous text is actually based on a reliable source.  But that isn't true in this case.  john k (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me. Exactly what in my preferred text qualifies as "nonsense" or carries the implications you suggest? As I pointed out below, the language I added is consistent with Wikipedia practice in the area (note the pages I cite), and is no worse than agnostic on the questions involved.  At this point, the main question is whether claims can be included in a BLP without reliable sourcing, and nobody has explained why this particular claim is somehow entitled to an exception. If Jenrette's current husband is who she describes him as, the leader of a prominent family entitled to the title she ascribes to him, there out to be a reliable source out there.  His own site doesn't count, nor does a self-published genealogy site using vanity press books as references. This is a simple sourcing question, and there's no exception in Wikipedia policy for princes, self-described or legally recognized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Guy Stair Sainty has his own wikipedia entry and seems to be something of a recognized expert on European nobility.  I think his site can qualify as a reliable source. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP says it can't, because it's self-published; whatever WP:RS leeway exists for recognized experts doesn't extend to sourcing information about living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are using BLP to instead say things that the subject of the article apparently doesn't like?  That's kind of bass-ackwards, isn't it?  The whole point of BLP is to be more protective of living people, not to piss them off.  At any rate, your version is not any more reliably sourced than the alternative. john k (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what in the text I wrote is not reliably sourced under BLP? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The implication of saying that he "claims" descent is that that claim is false.  That is certainly problematic.  Calling him a "perfume entrepeneur" is also problematic - his status as such seems to have emerged after his marriage.  He is an Italian aristocrat, first and foremost. john k (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claims descent" carries no such implication, and is used without that implication in other Wikipedia genealogical articles like Clan Gregor, Clan Nicolson, and El-Umari. In articles where the claim is questioned, a separate statement regarding the dispute of the claim is made, as in Clan MacFarlane and in Cantacuzino family. Like "styled," it's a standard, neutral-at-worst Wikipedian usage.  I don't understand why the "perfume entrepreneur" statement has become such an issue; as others have noted, it's the most solidly established, reliably sourced fact regarding him so far, and his involvement in a perfume business has been mentioned in virtually every online source regarding the wedding. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I'll concede that "claims descent" can be used in an NPOV manner without making such an implication.  That was silly on my part.  I do think that saying that they "style themselves" in such a way is a bit problematic.  As far as "perfume entrepeneur," I think the issue would be not with saying that he is one, but implying that that is mainly what he is.  The man is nearly 70 years old, and apparently only started making perfume recently.  More important is his status as a member of the aristocratic family, I think.  (Note that, via Google Books, I've found a reliable genealogical source below, a book on the descendants of Popes.) john k (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Titles 

message: * To say that Jenrette is perhaps best known for her salacious revelations and Playboy pictorials is mealy mouthed. 
This article, a puff piece, says as much. 
* "some of the events that transpired during their marriage"? Puhleez! Why so circumspect? Say it plain - she had sex on the Capitol steps and got nekkid in Playboy.  
* Who really cares about some report on world hunger that she co-authored?  That's in her bio to make her seem like less of a gold digger.
* Isn't a timeline format poor wiki style?  Decade titled sections carry almost no info. And the decade division shoehorns her Fox news in with her nudie pics. It should be in a different phase of her bio.  05:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis on key points 

message: I have known Rita for almost two decades.  We first met through the theatre and while Rita was appearing on stage in one play, she graciously agreed to do a staged reading of one of mine.
Thereafter, Rita and I became close friends and we shared many experiences--some filled with joy and laughter and others less happy.  So what's new?
Rita's notoriety has frequently been the source of pain for her.  I have observed that many women, in particular, are prone to saying unkind things about her without any real basis in fact. The fact that Rita is an extraordinarily beautiful woman hasn't made her life any easier in many respects.
Throughout our long friendship, I have found Rita to be honest, generous, and reliable.  I am proud to have her as one of my dearest friends.
--Gordon Osmond (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific suggestions on how to improve the article?  With all respect, we discuss the article here, not the subject herself (a subtle but very important distinction). --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 14:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Mr Osmond my name is mine menchel. I’m trying to contact Ms Jenrette about a tv possibility. Can you be of assistance? 2603:8001:9100:AF1F:84F7:617A:B44B:F5DB (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rita Jenrette:  A Dear Friend 

message: I'm not trying to be controversial or libelous, but calling her second pictorial "semi-nude" would be stretching common definition of nudity. Google image searches don't lie. Every contemporary newspaper article I found about the pictorial using Google news search, referred to it as nude.  
Calling it simply a "pictorial in Playboy" conveys the message without provoking a controversy. G&E (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictorials

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rita Jenrette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103205005/http://ritajenrette.com/press/GorgeousBlonde/index.jpg to http://www.ritajenrette.com/press/GorgeousBlonde/index.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102050757/http://ritajenrette.com/press/Crains/crains.jpg to http://www.ritajenrette.com/press/Crains/crains.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the guardian, newspaper of impeccable credentials, has referred to the subject as Prince Nicolò in articles dealing with villa aurora, most recently today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/14/the-princess-and-the-caravaggio-bitter-dispute-rages-over-roman-villa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.36.71 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  yet -