Talk:Fulco Ruffo di Calabria

Titulature

This was a noble family -- not a royal dynasty: sons and daughters of the various princes and dukes bear the prefix Don or Donna -- they are not entitled to the prefix of prince/ss or duke/duchess, unless they happened to inherit a territorial princely or ducal title in their own right (which several members of this family did -- but not most). Using the princely prefix for all members of this family gives the false impression that they were a sovereign dynasty -- which the Ruffos never were. I gather that people keep making all the Ruffos princes because some folks have trouble accepting that Paola Ruffo, even though she was the daughter of a Principe, was not a princess prior to her marriage into the Belgian royal family. Must be corrected or Wikipedia looks as though its editors don't understand the difference between royalty and nobility.FactStraight (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2 World War I service 3 Postwar service - and what about his service in between, i.e. during WW II? Senator under Mussolini

With all due respect, but ... why is that period completely missing out of wikipedia? --SvenAERTS (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference section

Have the prior editors ever thought of listing references for such citations as they do provide?

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Never mind. Did their job for them.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Citations are references, and it has not been the style of this article to convert inline cites to abbreviated ones with full info only given in the separate references section. Want to be encouraging and respectful of your ongoing "overhaul" of the article. But please bear in mind that, per CITE, since the original citation for this article included the info (source name, IBSN, etc) inline, that style should not be unilaterally changed. That original cite was added 26 December 2007 and your first cite was added 2 April 2010. Speaking of your change to that original cite, it is a reference to a volume of the well-known Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels (usually abbreviated GHdA), and I see no mention anywhere in that 2001 volume of the person you've changed the citation to list as the book's author, Hans Friedrich von Ehrenkrook. GHdA is the successor to the Almanach de Gotha since 1951, is published under the auspices of the Deutschen Adelsrechtsausschusses, and is not generally attributed to any one author since it puts out several series of volumes annually covering different subjects -- this one is the 16th volume of the Furstliche Hauser series. FactStraight (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

I do beg your pardon. I fished about in Edit history for the original example, but missed it. I then (wrongly) concluded that no set style of cite had been decided; in five years editing WP, I don't recall seeing another article using your style of cites. However, your cites seemed to be the odd examples, so I (wrongly) standardised on short form cites, with the aim of regularizing all the cites to a uniform acceptable style.

I will restore your cites to their original form. Again, my apologies.

Incidentally, as I noted, Ehrenkrook is the lead editor for the book in question.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

I have changed all text references into your preferred form of cite.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Your unfamiliarity with "my" style of cites puzzles me, since it is exactly the inline format generated when an editor completes the "Add a Reference" template that appears at the bottom of the edit screen on every Wikipedia article, encouraging use. My cites are in that format because I use the recommended template. Presumably that template wasn't there when the first cite -- using the same format -- was added to this article in '07, but the fact that format is now the default template for article citations attests to its prevalence on Wikipedia. FactStraight (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary when editing him out, the reference to Ehrenkrook as author or editor of the 2001 reference work, Furstliche Hauser fails verification. The point of specific references is to allow anyone to verify the accuracy of what is included in Wikipedia by checking the actual source. I am holding my tattered copy of the 2001 hard cover edition of that book in my hand. It contains 624 pages and I've checked again and can't find Ehrenkrook's name anywhere, nor in the other volumes I possess up to and including the 2011 edition. In deference to your outstanding effort editing this article and your gracious response here, I am not deleting it because I have no doubt you found a reliable source attributing chief editorship to him or you wouldn't have Wikipedia say so. Nonetheless, to avoid future verifying editors re-hashing the issue, it should be acknowledged that one cannot verify Ehrenkrook's association with the book in the source itself -- perhaps a suggestion that, as I've said, Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels is a much-cited series of reference works and the omission of Ehrenkrook's name from it is consistent with the pattern that volumes in this series are not normally attributed to individual contributors, any more than were those in the original Almanach de Gotha. FactStraight (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello, FactStraight,

I garnered the bibliographic info that I cited from Google books at http://books.google.com/books?id=K_ormQEACAAJ&dq=isbn:9783798008243&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VxONUbrJHoOQ8wTXhYGwCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA. Obviously, your hard copy trumps Google's listing. If the cite needs further correction, feel free to improve it. I copied your form of cites to the best of my ability, but may have erred.

While I left the Reference section be, I could see the propriety of deleting the bibliographic info, since it is a duplicate of the cites used.

And so I leave this article in your capable hands, while I hie off on my self-appointed task of improving the bios of World War flying aces.

Best regards,

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Vandalism in the Early life and prewar military service Section

The third paragraph in the Early life and prewar military service section makes absolutely no sense and does not seem to cite any sources whatsoever. I suspect that the fault results from vandalism. Unless anyone objects, I may decide to clean up this section. Yungtrotsky (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)