Talk:Nicolas de Gunzburg

"Gunzburg, Nicholas de" or "de Gunzburg, Nicholas"
User:D C McJonathan has chosen to revert my correct realphabetizing of the categories by "Gunzberg" rather than "de Gunzberg" citing personal use. But, naturally, he doesn't provide documentation for personal use, and in his reversion has alphabetized him for the purposes of categorization incorrectly. Therefore, I have reverted his recent edit. With regard to his claim of subject's personal use: 1) According to phonebooks of the era in Glenwood (in Sussex County, NJ), he was alphabetized as by the locative of the last name, Gunzberg, considering that information is voluntarily provided to phone books by the subscriber to the services of the phone company, strike one. 2) Custom has it for nobility to be categorized by the locative, and not the "de" or "von", etc., and someone raised within the aristocratic classes wouldn't cheapen their image or break with custom by using the prepositional part of the title instead of the locative last name. Only social climbing arrivistes (of the lower classes) emphasize the "de" or "von" as an effort to say "look at my title." Those already of the nobility do not. Gunzberg was not a social climbing arriviste. Strike two. 3) If you also read Baron Gunzberg's letters, he signs several of them with his locative last name "Gunzberg" not as "de Gunzberg" which is wholly in keeping with the European aristocratic fashion. Strike Three.  Also of note:  If you notice, databases or enumerations of nobles alphabetize in this way, and might I emphasize, enumerations of actors that mention Gunzberg do alphabetize him under G.  Therefore, McJonathan's argument justifying his reverting my realphabetizing of the categories is SPECIOUS. Therefore, I implore you, DCMcJonathan, don't be an idiot by reverting to the incorrect form again.  In the words of many an ump, you're out. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 03:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would not begin to argue with anyone who is a clear as you on fighting your own POV. My experience has been that the norm for the English Wikipedia is to alphabetize by the de or the von while I realize that this is not the European tradition. I hear where you are coming from, but will not waste my time on this now. Time will take care of it. By the same token a woman who spells her name "Marion" is "wrong", however if that is what she used, it is correct. Doc ♬ talk 14:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect analogy, because a woman named "Marion" is correct no matter how, because that's how she spells her name and calls herself...whether she's named after the Swamp Fox Francis Marion or corrupts the spelling of Marian. The point is, Gunzburg, didn't call himself "de Gunzburg"... sure it was his name, but being a good european nobleman, didn't sign letters "de Gunzburg" because only arrivistes seeking their association with the aristocratic class would ever do that.  Lastly, accuracy isn't a POV.  Ironically, there is no norm for this on Wikipedia.  A convention needs to be established.  Hopefully, the correct one wins out when cooler heads prevail. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 16:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * McJonathan, I'd also direct you to Categorization of people especially that part about Montesquieu and Beethoven, since it is that section that applies to Baron de Gunzberg. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 05:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect! The part about Beethoven is the exception of a common name instead look at Categorization of people at the second bullet: "*People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: ;  →   Exceptions:


 * Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example: Beethoven, ; similarly: Montesquieu,  " I never heard Niki de Gunzburg called Gunzburg, so he does not follow the "exception" of Beethoven! Thanks for giving me the direct citation. Case closed. Doc ♬ talk 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's where you are wrong, the case will not be closed as long as you continue to revert against this rule and alphabetize this individual incorrectly within categories. Your continued INCORRECT reverting is vandalism.  And I will revert it to the correct form and in the end report you as a continuing vandal despite being quoted the rules.  Gunzberg's the same thing as Montesquieu, therefore the second part of that rule applies...Just as Montesquieu is treated as "Montesquieu, Baron de", Gunzberg becomes "Gunzberg, Baron Nicholas de."  You obviously failed reading comprehension.  The Salisbury  example is a perfect example if you want an English equivalent...you wouldn't alphabetize him as "of Salisbury, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess."  The "de" equals "of".  You don't alphabetize people by prepositions within their titles, and his name is only a response of his titles since after 1918 continental titles (especially those of Germanic origins) became part of the name.  Stop being so oblivious to the application of the rule.  So, when I recategorize the vanity article under your name, should I alphabetize you in the category by the dash between McJonathan and Swarm?  Be reasonable and see the rule for what it plainly says. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SEE how Wikipedia categorizes the following examples: Paul von Hindenburg is alphabetized under H, not under "v", as is the case with his son Oskar von Hindenburg, as is August von Gneisenau, under G, not v.  The author of The Marriage of Figaro is alphabetized as "Beaumarchais, Pierre-Augustin Caron de".  Do you get the friggin' drift already or do I have to cite every person belonging the continental nobility before you even start to understand that YOU ARE WRONG? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 15:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen your position from the beginning, but you are citing either what are defined as "exceptions" by Categorization of people or are in error. The guideline is not to follow what you suggest. Doc ♬ talk 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You mischaracterize the rule. Stop being incorrect and obtuse. Read the convention, because you are speaking from complete ignorance. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 16:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat ambiguous how to categorise people in this situation and so can understand the confusion here. My take on it would be to use Gunzburg, Nicholas de since he is referred to as "Gunzburg" in the article and not "de Gunzburg". violet/riga (t) 16:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First meeting with Dreyer
Gunzberg cannot have first met Dreyer in 1931 as Vampyr, which he financed and starred in, was partly shot in 1930. This point needs greater clarity. Philip Cross (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicolas de Gunzburg. 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/20120601000000/http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_men to http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/bestdressed/bestdressed_men

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) 04:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)