Talk:Well he would, wouldn't he?

Layout ideas and sources moved from HTML comment

Hey all! I moved the following block from an HTML comment on the article. It appears to hold an outline for the layout of the article along with some source ideas, which I believe are better suited here on the talk page. (Additionally, I'm working on a process to automatically replace TWL proxy links with their unproxied versions in the mainspace, and I don't want that to interfere with your work here.)

If you want to organize this a little more, I can also recommend the {{Refideas}} template made just for this case on talk pages.

Sources and layout

== Background == * Profumo affair * Investigation of Ward == The phrase == * Trial of Stephen Ward * Examination of MRD * Utterance of the phrase == Analysis == The Edwards and Potter book have a rhetorical analysis of the phrase. Maybe there are others? == Political use == explanation of how it is used in politics. this section should not just become a list of non-notable examples. Some sources, feel free to use or discard: MR-D obits: *https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies *https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30547066 *https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies-fabled-player-british-scandal-profumo *https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/mandy-ricedavies-showgirl-who-became-famous-for-her-part-in-the-profumo-affair-and-went-on-to-enjoy-a-successful-business-career-9937022.html https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk-news/profumo-scandals-mandy-rice-davies-dies-aged-70-1517630 - has quote "Her response seemed to encapsulate a new lack of deference to the old order as the country emerged from the austerity of the immediate post-war years" Contemporary news reports (will need to be made into proper non-TWL links):<br> http://www-newspapers-c.m.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/257872428/<br> http://www-newspapers-c.m.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/871064378/ (has Rice-Davies saying it "amid laughter", although not sure how much stock we can put into that seeing as others have the laughter after she says it) Internet Archive: Scholar and Google Books:<br> https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eVn_5NFaHHcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA31&dq=%22Mandy+Rice-Davies%22&ots=9GePLVne8z&sig=vhImlecGb2lK_RDGvSywjko9df0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Mandy%20Rice-Davies%22&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cUVvDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22Mandy+Rice-Davies%22&ots=wI8wI2gcqB&sig=mYaZKLmGGRfntHjLzlOqMbIiAOs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Mandy%20Rice-Davies%22&f=false http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/article/view/5457/7329 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.12965 TWL<br> http://academic-oup-c.m.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/search-results?q=%22mandy+rice-davies%22&fl_SiteID=191&page=2

Happy editing! CCing the two main editors of the current version of the page, Voorts and Tim O'Doherty. Bsoyka (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Bsoyka, appreciate the work you do and the edit you made, even though I reverted it. Happy editing and happy new year. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Drafting

@voorts - Going to start properly drafting on the talk here. Don't want to put my rough sketches live on the article, so thought this would be the best place. Feel free to edit as normal (not an attitude shared by everyone, I know. Ho-hum.)

Thanks Tim O'Doherty (and yes, that was a fun experience at the CESSPIT). In terms of dividing up work, could you start on the background stuff since you're read up on the Profumo affair (the extent of my knowledge is Scandal (RIP John Hurt)). I'd be happy to get working on the Analysis and political use sections. Anything you recommend I read on the affair/the Ward trial (articles, scholarly or otherwise, preferred to books)? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Because of my own idiocy in carving up the cb into sections the ping didn't go through. Sorry voorts. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I just tried fixing it but I think our edits conflicted. Maybe making this a subpage of talk would be easier? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I have this page on my watchlist, so no need to ping. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do that. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll probably be able to do some work over the weekend on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. As for scholarly articles, I don't have many lined up at the front of my mind, but Google Scholar has some good-looking stuff. Matt Chorley's new book which I got a few months ago also has a pretty good executive summary which I'd be happy to brief you with. TWL will be a goldmine, as per. Just reading our great FA on the subject will give enough context for a simple summary of Ward's... err, less than fortunate experiences with the law. I can have a look over the weekend, but this area of serious research a bit out of my wheelhouse: it's not cats, is it? ;) (joking). Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I looked through relevant TWL databases yesterday and just added another two sources. I couldn't find anything else. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I also looked through the relevant TWL databases yesterday, and ... me neither. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, that's not strictly true: there's plenty on newspapers.com, but just snappy journalistic quotes about non-deference and similar and I think there's probably enough of those in the article already... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah many of those also don't actually analyze the quote, they just use it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just need to finish the background sections then. I can probably get it mostly done by the end of the month: I'll probably just use Scandal '63 and Macmillan (vol. 2) as the main two sources. I've added the links there if you want to have a flick through. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the main thing that needs fleshing out is Ward's reputation and role, the investigation into him, the events leading up to the trial, and a general description of the start of the trial. I'm not sure where we should add stuff about Ward being a scapegoat. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The latter parts of Scandal '63 have Ward's arrest, trial and examination of MRD in quite a bit of detail. Agree that the Ward trial should be prioritised, and the general bits of the Profumo affair should be kept to an absolute minimum: just enough for the reader to understand what's going on. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "he would, wouldn't he?" Source: https://inews.co.uk/culture/well-he-would-wouldnt-he-bbcs-the-trial-of-christine-keeler-gets-famous-quote-right-374825
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew J. Evans Jr.
  • Comment: Expansion from this version of the article began on January 5 in this draft.

5x expanded by Voorts (talk) and Tim O'Doherty (talk). Nominated by Voorts (talk) at 21:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Well he would, wouldn't he?; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Voorts: A very nicely executed article (it's great to see such robust academic coverage of not-so-traditionally famous but nevertheless undeniably notable person, or rather of something she said), and a very fun hook! I've checked sources that are available to me (non-charge accessible online, and one OpenLibrary book) and AGF on the rest. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. The article is long enough, and the article has references for all body text paragraphs. I just have a few comments about the page, that I think would be simple to fix.

First, the body text as is seems to accidentally attribute the words of Robert McCrum's review of Peter Stanford's biography of Bronwen Astor to Stanford (e. g. "among the most devastating sentences uttered in the English language in the last half century", "careful reconstruction of pre-war social certainties", and "finally exposed as utterly fraudulent" are all McCrum's words in his review summarizing part of the book's narrative and aren't in Bronwen Astor, Her Life and Times proper). That portion just needs to be revised to attribute the words accurately to McCrum and his review.

Second, the page as is attributes Harold Macmillan's resignation solely to his "ill health", but the source itself (the book Supermac) is ambiguous on his motives. Page 566 goes on to say Macmillan was aware that his condition was benign, not malignant, and that "Far from believing he had cancer, Macmillan 'expressed great relief that he had reason to leave the political crises which he had faced'", making it sound like he resigned to avoid political fallout rather than to take care of his health (566). Is there a way to rephrase this to (without overwhelming the page) reflect the source's own ambiguity over Macmillan's reasons for resigning?

Thank you for bearing with these additional requests; since DYK brings a lot of attention to pages (as you well know, I suspect), I just want to make sure these are cleared up. With the resolution of these, I will be glad to approve the nomination. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)<

@P-Makoto - these slip-ups are all to do with me. Hang on. I'll deal with 'em. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. I did originally, when writing that bit, think that it was a McCrum quote rather than a Stanford quote. However, I cross-checked it with Google Books, and saw that it had appeared in the book. That's my fault; I was going to attribute it to McCrum originally, but got too sure of myself. That's embarrassing. I'll fix it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

To your second concern, I'm not sure what went wrong: might be a muddle-up with different editions of the book? I'll extend it to that version's page 548, which has the quote: "Macmillan was not brought down by Profumo: he was brought down by his prostate". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that line makes the Macmillan matter much more unequivocal; citing to that page, I think saying that he resigned for his health is completely appropriate. As for the McCrum quotation, that's odd how searching on GoogleBooks yields a hit, but searching in the book's own preview doesn't. Maybe something to do with how Google's search works. Or maybe McCrum's review is quoted on the back cover? In any case, looks like both are fixed, so I have approved the nomination below. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto: I'm going to tag in my co-nominator, Tim O'Doherty, who is probably better equipped to address your comments. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

With both questions answered/alleviated per the thread above, I am glad to approve the article for DYK. Well done! P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@P-Makoto - Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Book citations

@Tim O'Doherty: Some of the book titles are in title case and others are in sentence case. Since the rest of the cites are sentence case, I think the book should be as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I changed my mind and made the books title case. Books should be title case because they're analogous to journal and newspaper titles, which we have in title case. Any book chapters, like journal or newspaper articles, should be in sentence case. Does that work for you? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, missed this. Yes, that's fine. It's what was recommended to me at Truss's FAC too, so won't be an issue there. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Page move

The sources all report the quote as "he would, wouldn't he"? Am I missing something? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Contemporary sources? There are a few 21st century sources which have "well": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which says (Others quoted her as saying, "He would, wouldn't he?" or, "Well, he would, wouldn’t he?"). There's also Common Phrases by Max Cryer, which has "well" too. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess it might be the common name, but the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has the entry as "he would, wouldn't he?", and cites to contemporaneous news reports. I'll add to that footnote that's already there with a note that contemporary sources don't include the "well". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Court reporting is very far from infallible, so there's that. It's very possible that what Rice-Davies said wasn't quite "well he would, wouldn't he?": it might well have just been "he would, wouldn't he?" but I suppose we'll never know. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We won't, won't we? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes misquoted as "Well we won't, won't we?" or "Well we won't know that, won't we?" Ed. (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Blockquotes

Are blockquotes really not allowed (or at least discouraged) at FAC? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I only ask because paragraph three of Analysis and legacy is a big, brutalist block of text and might benefit from being broken up a bit. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. They don't like long quotations if they're not needed. If you can summarize, you generally should. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking about how to reorganize that paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. What do you think? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@voorts - Unrelated, but I see you've added that it was widely reported in the press: newspapers.com shows that it was on the front page of the Evening Standard the day she said it. It's a primary source though, so I don't know whether it merits inclusion. I'm 50/50 and a bit wary of inclusion; your call. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The source I've cited, Stanford's obit of MRD, says that it made front page news, so I think we can cite that, and then have additional cites to primary sources as examples. We should look at other front pages of major newspapers and see if they carried the story there. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

None that I can see. There are a few papers with the quote carried on page one, but just in the columns, and none in big obvious letters between the masthead and headline. For the sake of completeness: Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Birmingham Evening Mail, Grimsby Evening Telegraph, Lincolnshire Echo, Evening Telegraph, Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph, Evening Sentinel, Herald Express, Hull Daily Mail and Saturday Chronicle and News. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think inclusion meets WP:PRIMARY #3. I'll add it. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This from The Guardian is interesting. Obviously we can't even come close to using it as it's from the letters section and they're write-ins from members of the public, but the first one re Stanford's obit might be worth thinking over: "The truth of Mandy Rice-Davies's allegations concerning Viscount Astor is questioned by her obituary writer Peter Stanford—but without mentioning the fact that he was the ghostwriter for Astor's widow, Bronwen Pugh. The Guardian reviewer of the book (I'm guessing this refers to Robert McCrum) wrote that Stanford was "embarrassing" in his identification with Pugh and showed "partisan snobbery" in his attack on people like Rice-Davies. I always found Mandy to be truthful when tested against the files and testimony from other participants in the scandal". Not usable for the purposes of this article, but it did grab my attention when I read it. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have RSes that confirm MRD's story? Maybe there's a book review that criticizes Stanford's book? Removing the part about whether the claims had been proved true for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What else ...

do we need to take this to GAN? I think a bit more about Ward and his lifestyle can be added to the background to bring this up to FA quality, but I think it's good enough for GA. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@voorts - If you think the article has a good chance of passing, go for it. Yes, it will need fleshing out before FAC, but GAN is a lot laxer on "comprehensiveness": it just needs to be "broad", which this article definitely is. Besides, can take a while to get a GA reviewer, and the article can still expand a lot before then. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominated. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Well he would, wouldn't he?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Well I'd pass this very neat and entertaining article straight away really, wouldn't I, but people do like to see a few comments here and there, don't they...

• "MRDA" - that's the Men's Roller Derby Association, no? – seriously, not too sure about putting the acronym up here, specially without an explicit citation. "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" is well attested, but why are we emphasising the acronym in the lead? And by the way, when something is ambiguous, as this acronym is, we don't put it in boldface in the lead, as that implies a (major) redirect target.

We did later reference it with Halls 2020, but can repeat it in the lead if wanted. I looked at Sagan standard, a quotation FA and it similarly has (ECREE): that does redirect there, but MRDA has competition, as you've said. Are you strongly in favour of removing it from the lead? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The minimum is to remove the boldface, which is non-standard when there's ambiguity.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The use of "and" in section headings is generally a sign of lack of focus: and it looks untidy even when it isn't. "Use and analysis" could simply be "Analysis" here, with nothing lost (as use has been described in the section above). "Cross-examination and utterance", too, could just be "Utterance", but that does reveal the slightly academic word-choice here. We agree that the phrase contains a rhetorical question, but it's still a "Statement": no doubt other solutions can be found. The other instance, "Investigation and trial of Stephen Ward", can probably do without the "and trial", for the good reason that the section doesn't mention the trial.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that we need boldface in Note 1: it's certainly non-standard there.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The reference "Front page. Evening Standard." is unusual in several ways, in particular sitting oddly without a date (like the other newspaper refs); I don't really see why they should be undated here. Alternatives might be "Evening Standard 1963", or "A Cliveden Swim" (if dates are out) to match your Washington Post ref which uses a headline. The different treatments feel uneven, in a word.

I've swopped it for your suggestion, "A Cliveden swim—by Miss R". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should move the cite to the lead per MOS:LEAD; citing it later is fine. Additionally, the MRDA disambiguation page links here, so removing it might cause confusion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The Washington Post calls it a "quip", which might be worth quoting: it's accurate, and makes a nice change from "the phrase" at least.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

• The images, all from Commons, appear to have suitable licenses.

Sources

• The books should have an OCLC when an ISBN is not available (Irving 1964).

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• The use of an ASIN for Thorpe 2010 is basically wrong (deprecated), and unnecessary given the OCLC there.

—  Done Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• "Front page" should have the same date format as all the other newspaper articles.

We haven't got authors for the Scotsman article, the 30 June Observer article or the front page, while all the others do: is that what's causing it to display differently? It's formatted in wikitext the same. Am I missing something? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. But why are we using "Front Page" rather than the article's headline?

Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Spot-checks: everything I tried checked out as it should have. Stanford 2014 is entertaining on the punctuation (a dry subject if ever I heard one).

Summary

• This is a good crisp article, very tidily cited (thinking of FAC, anyone?), and it'll be a GA very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-GA feedback

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for the speedy review. Do you have any additional feedback before @Tim O'Doherty and I bring this to FA? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to check every detail of every ref all over again, and good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Lord Astor vs. William Astor

@Tim O'Doherty, SNUGGUMS, and WP Ludicer: I think we ought to discuss whether Astor ought to be referred to as Lord Astor or William Astor, or whether there can be a compromise. I tend to agree with Tim that Lord Astor makes the most sense. As Tim has noted, all of the sources regarding the events of the Profumo affair—including ones from recent years—refer to him as Lord Astor. Additionally, calling him William Astor doesn't convey that he's not just some random guy, but a lord. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose something like William, Lord Astor on the first reference is a possible compromise? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy using "William, Lord Astor" or some variation thereof, as Hydrangeans suggests, for first mention since it helps to disambiguate the individual and helps the reader to grasp his high social status (which is indeed relevant to the article, I agree). After that, though, there's absolutely no need for the honorific. Repeated usage (outside of direct quotes, as I mentioned in my edit summary) is laboring the point and showing bias for an aristocratic form of address that serves the same function as "Mr." or "Miss" (or "Dr." or "Prof."), yet the latter are clearly not part of the Wikipedia style. Even for exceptional cases like Lord Byron (or, along the same vein, Mother Teresa [which, as I read it now, also goes too far with the liberally-yet-inconsistently-sprinkled honorific], or Mahatma Gandhi), outside of first mention and possibly in an article title when an individual is widely and commonly known by some form of honorific, it serves no purpose other than aggrandizement. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not the same as "Mr" or "Miss". Think more "Prince" or "Princess". It's true that forms like "Smith" are preferred over "Mr Smith" per the MOS, but there is equally nothing wrong with saying things like "Prince John" at each mention, especially if a., the article isn't about the person in question (this article is not about Lord Astor) and b., the person is mentioned infrequently enough (as Lord Astor is here). "it serves no purpose other than aggrandizement" - that is flatly not true. "laboring the point and showing bias" - I don't think so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

His title or rank was "Viscount". "Lord" is a mere honorific or style that is exactly like "Mr." King Charles might be called King Charles, Charles, or merely "the King" repeatedly in running text, but not His Majesty King Charles. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that per the Manual of Style, the use of a title like Lord in article text is treated like a matter of regional English variation: similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences [...] honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus. Based on that, the use of Lord should be retained in this article (or restored where removed), since that was the style prior to the edits that began June 28. (By way of aside about Lord Byron, the guideline also states, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, so that article is fine if it sticks with calling him Byron, as it presently does.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll concede the MOS guideline is clear so I won't make any further unilateral changes, but I maintain – while drawing attention to the words unless there is consensus – there is absolutely no need for it here. First mention makes it clear who he was and what his social status was. Anything after that is fluff, like repeatedly appending "Dr." to someone's name. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot grasp why would prioritize mentioning a "Lord" or "Viscount" title over someone's own first name. Doing so is illogical and makes no sense to me, plus hiding the first name from link presentation is a disservice to readers that goes an against WP:EASTEREGG, which I was trying to follow. We shouldn't assume everyone will know which Lord/Viscount from the Astor family it refers to. With that in mind, "William, Lord Astor" admittedly looks unconventional compared to something "____ William Astor", but at least it gives a better sense of which family member is discussed than an unhelpfully vague "Lord Astor" would. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think you're missing the forest for the trees. His status as Lord Astor is important in the context of the article because, as the article discusses, part of the reason this phrase is famous is that it represents a commoner taking down a powerful member of the aristocracy.

To respond to some specific points:

• I cannot grasp why would prioritize mentioning a "Lord" or "Viscount" title over someone's own first name Per MOS:PREFIX, Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa. See the sources cited in the article, which refer to him—in the context of the Profumo affair—as Lord Astor, not William Astor or something else.
• Doing so is illogical and makes no sense to me ... Why?
• hiding the first name from link presentation is a disservice to readers that goes an against WP:EASTEREGG EASTEREGG states: Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them ... before understanding where they lead. Someone clicking on Lord Astor would expect to be taken to an article on Lord Astor, which they are. The examples listed at EASTEREGG are things like [[1944 Bombay explosion|earlier disaster]], which is fundamentally different than using a variation of a person's name. There's nothing misleading about that.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Meant to say "why anyone would prioritize mentioning", and for the record, his common title appears to be Viscount based on the page name of William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor. It doesn't make sense to give Lord/Viscount precedence over William (or even his nickname of Bill) because it's not like his page leaves out the first name entirely, and most subjects with a first and last name (unless using some sort of nickname or an alternate identity) will have those in their article titles. To use examples from his own family, take a look at John Jacob Astor or perhaps Ava Alice Muriel Astor. While having pipes omit first name even when containing surname certainly isn't as jarring as the explosion/disaster bit from WP:EASTEREGG, let's not downplay how the ambiguity of just using the "Lord" bit without a first name isn't as helpful for readers to determine which Lord from the family it refers to (there were others after and before him). I never said such a presentation was misleading, just that it was unhelpfully vague. Imagine for a moment the article was just in print form without any links. If somebody doesn't already know who the guy was, then the lack of a first name certainly won't do them any favors in that regard, though you unfortunately show no concern for this. Contrast such a setup with how having "William" somewhere in the link helps make things more transparent, and a print version of that would be more specific on his identity. We shouldn't overlook how hiding parts of links can be unhelpful for readers. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you're concerned with people not recognising him because we're using his aristocratic form of address, I'll point out that people are more likely to recognise him from "Lord Astor" than "William Astor" as he's far more commonly known by the former name. If we look at the use of the term "William Astor" on Google results (using the word "Profumo" in the search to separate him out from other William Astors) then we get 1,460 hits. Do the same with "Lord Astor" and you'll get 10,800. If you go to ngrams, in 1963 "Lord Astor" was mentioned four and a half times more than "William Astor". You can come up with MOS complaints if you like, but there is nothing natural or "more recognisable" about shoving in his first name which almost no HQRS uses. He is known to history and to the majority of the public who cares about the Profumo affair as "Lord Astor": not "William Astor". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The "almost no HQRS uses" claim is impossible to take seriously when "William" is rightfully used in the article title instead of "Lord" per WP:COMMONNAME. Same goes for being "known to history" more by the latter, also the Profumo affair is the only thing people know that guy for. The reduced Google/ngram counts is probably because there are multiple Astors named William (such as his great-great-grandfather William Backhouse Astor Sr. and great-granduncle William Backhouse Astor Jr.) that also get included in search results. Either way, I'd even opt for a full "Viscount William Astor" or perhaps "William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor" before the "Lord Astor" in a link that first mentions him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? There is no point other than to satisfy people who don't exist. Take public figures in the Britain of today like Lord True, Lord Frost and Lord Brownlow. They are never referred to as "Nicholas True", "David Frost" or "David Brownlow" and their names would be far less recognisable if people insisted on using their first names rather than their far more common forms of address. This manufactured objection comes from people who insist on mashing a square peg into a round hole because they cannot comprehend that people are addressed differently in different countries. The MOS treats this as a national variety of English. There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling Lord Astor "Lord Astor". Drop it now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I would strike Drop it now. While we both clearly disagree with SNUGGUMS, I think we're all trying to improve the encyclopedia and we shouldn't discourage people from sharing their concerns. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Responding to both of your above comments:

• for the record, his common title appears to be Viscount based on the page name of William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor. AND The "almost no HQRS uses" claim is impossible to take seriously when "William" is rightfully used in the article title instead of "Lord" per WP:COMMONNAME This is incorrect. The article title for Lord Astor follows the naming convention for British nobility, WP:NCPEER. It has nothing to do with his common name. Indeed, the evidence Tim provided clearly indicates that his common name is Lord Astor.
• Imagine for a moment the article was just in print form without any links. If somebody doesn't already know who the guy was, then the lack of a first name certainly won't do them any favors in that regard, though you unfortunately show no concern for this. The sources cited in the article literally refer to him as Lord Astor.

More broadly, I agree with Tim that your concerns appear to be highly artificial. Nobody who sees Lord Astor in this article and doesn't know who that is in the context of the Profumo affair is going to wonder whether it's John Jacob or Ava Alice or William Backhouse Sr. or Jr. If there's a person who exists who knows who all of those people are, but doesn't know which Lord Astor was involved in the Profumo affair, I would like to meet that person. And, for someone who doesn't know who any of those people are, the use of Lord Astor would not be confusing at all because they don't know that there are other people who it might be. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Both of you brushing off my concerns as "artificial" is unfairly dismissive. Tim didn't need to make snide remarks on comprehension or "people who insist on mashing a square peg into a round hole". That was completely uncalled for and I resent the arrogant and condescending tone. Saying someone is "never referred to" by a certain format sounds questionable given their article titles plus we don't always know how people talk about those men in daily conversation. Regardless, it's beyond me why anyone would give precedence to the NCPEER guideline over the COMMONNAME policy, and that user also shouldn't make presumptions whether certain people do or don't exist. We have no way of telling for sure when not everyone who ever lived has spoken about their knowledge on those involved. You appear to care more about titles than any other part of the guy's identity. What I spoke about has nothing to do with nationalities, and had he not been a peer, I doubt you'd be as focused on "Lord", "Viscount", "Baron", or other designations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"had he not been a peer, I doubt you'd be as focused on "Lord", "Viscount", "Baron"...": Wut? He wouldn't have been those if not for his hereditary peerages... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise, I've clarified the lead as follows:

During the trial, Ward's lawyer James Burge asked Rice-Davies whether she was aware that Lord Astor—a hereditary peer and Conservative Lord Temporal in the House of Lords—had denied having an affair with her; Rice-Davies replied "Well he would, wouldn't he?"

I've also changed the first instance where Lord Astor is mentioned after the lead as follows:

Keeler had been introduced to both Ivanov and Profumo through her friendship with Stephen Ward, an osteopath and socialite who rented a cottage on the grounds of the Cliveden estate—where Keeler and Profumo met—from William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor, a hereditary peer and Conservative Lord Temporal in the House of Lords.

Thereafter, he is referred to as Lord Astor.

@Tim O'Doherty, @SNUGGUMS, @WP Ludicer: can we all live with this? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I'd copyedited the second bit. I'll do the same for the lead. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, Vroots: it does help show the two are synonymous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)