Talk:William Waldorf Astor

Hereditary title
I've edited the links to Astor II III etc to their titles as that's how they were most known. If someone thinks that the II II needs mentioning then do so but a note would be best as it really confuses matters when you have one son listed by III and another by his title (baron hever~). Hopefully it's now more consistent Alci12 13:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement that the Astor viscountcy was hereditary while the barony was not is false. Baronies were the lowest-ranking of the hereditary peers. The first Lord Astor's son was a Tory politician of considerable ambition, and he is said to have been angry when the father accepted the barony, which, when eventually inherited, would have removed the son from the House of Commons, as in fact the inheritance of the later viscountcy did. I have deleted the statement.

The matter is dealt with by Christopher Sykes in his biography of Lady Astor, Nancy. (London, 1972) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samhook (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED. There is consensus that the subject is sufficiently often referred to as William Waldorf Astor for WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE to dictate the title, in accordance with guidance at WP:NCPEER. No one seems to object to creating the William Waldorf Astor (disambiguation) page as suggested below. В²C ☎ 21:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor → William Waldorf Astor – Subject is typically just referred to as "William Waldorf Astor" Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * According to Viscount Astor, his descendants were also known by that title. How is it established that the 1st Viscount is the primary person to use the name? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Furthermore one of these is still living. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Three things come to mind for primary use:
 * Looking into Astor biographies such as When the Astors Owned New York: Blue Bloods and Grand Hotels in a Gilded Age by Justin Kaplan and Mrs. Astor's New York: Money and Social Power in a Gilded Age by Eric Homberger, mentions of "William Waldorf Astor" seem to pertain to the original man of this name more than his grandson or great-grandson.
 * The fact that the name currently redirects to here suggests he is primary topic for "William Waldorf Astor" over them.
 * Grandson William Waldorf Astor II's article is titled "William Astor, 3rd Viscount Astor" while the great-grandson William Waldorf Astor III's article is "William Astor, 4th Viscount Astor". Note how neither of their articles contain "Waldorf", suggesting that they tend not to be as often referred to by full name as the original William Waldorf Astor.


 * Outside of these, simply titling this article "William Waldorf Astor" complies with the policy WP:CONCISE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the name currently redirects here and the titling of the other articles could just be a bias by the previous editors, however I do believe that the fact that the reliable sources establish the primary use. We could possibly move the current page to a disambiguation and add it as a hatnote? Or at least include some sort of mention of the other two people known by the name? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What I would do is move this page to "William Waldorf Astor" per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and primary use, and then have a DAB page titled "William Waldorf Astor (disambiguation)" containing him, the grandson, and the great-grandson. The DAB page would then be included in a referral note in this article. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good way to rename the article but still disambiguate from the others. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Commonly known as Lord Astor, not as William Waldorf Astor, so the current title is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Astor family biographies often refer to him as "William Waldorf Astor". See the links I gave above for examples. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Lord Astor does not even redirect here, and it appears that there is another peerage with title Astor too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. My point was that he is commonly referred to as Lord Astor. He is not the only Lord Astor, but the fact he is referred to commonly as Lord Astor means that it is not unreasonable to include his title in the article title per WP:NCPEER, which mandates this form except for those not commonly known by their title. There is no reason whatsoever to go against this longstanding guideline in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "William Waldorf Astor" gives 143,000 results on Google compared to 6,040 results for "William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor" or 72,500 results for "Lord William Waldorf Astor" as well as 2,360 results on Google Scholar compared to 316 results for "William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor" or 1,720 results for "Lord William Waldorf Astor". The WP:COMMONNAME policy says to use what a subject is most often referred to as, which clearly isn't by the Viscount title. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NCPEER and explain why, for this one individual, we should make an exception to almost every other article about a peer on Wikipedia! Also take a look at Category:Viscounts in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Most of them weren't commonly referred to as Foo Foo, xth Viscount Foo either. But that is our naming convention for peers! Has been for many years, as enshrined in the naming convention. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If it isn't the WP:COMMONNAME (which again is a policy and not just a guideline), then it shouldn't be the article title. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant. If he is not the only Lord Astor then we must establish which one is the primary person for that name. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why must we? I'm not suggesting it be moved to Lord Astor! I am suggesting we follow WP:NCPEER! He is the only William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. With all due respect, comments above lead me to suspect that the other participants in this discussion do not understand how the British peerage works and either have not read or do not understand the relevant naming convention. There is only one William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor. The naming convention mandates that the article should therefore be titled William Waldorf Astor, 1st Viscount Astor. It's very simple and there is no reason to make an exception to the general rule for him. If he was almost never referred to as Viscount Astor (or its more common form, Lord Astor) then that would be different, but he most certainly is very commonly referred to in this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as to say "mandate". The WP:NCPEER guideline says people are usually tiled a certain way, not always. It also doesn't trump WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline literally states There are several exceptions to these rules.
 * Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names: e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell").
 * Peers who are very well known by their personal names and who only received a title after they retired, e.g. Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher"). This is worth keeping in mind. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of which are true for Astor! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if not "exclusive", he certainly is known by his personal name much more than by the Viscount title. I doubt anyone could credibly assert otherwise. Something to remember is that "usually" taking a form (what the guideline states as I noted before) IS NOT the same as "always" using it or mandating such use. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems to be predominantly known as these three names, not as "Lord Astor", so per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, the move shoudl be made. Also the evidence seems to be that he is more commonly referred to with the full names than the other Astors are, suggesting he is a good PTOPIC for the term. There should be a hatnote at the top to William Astor, which is the full dab page for this and related topics. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The evidence above and my own cursory look through Google Books suggests that this is by far the most common way of referring to him versus other options (certainly more so than the present name). Other things like "Lord Astor" or "Viscount Astor" are common but are ambiguous with others in this family. However, he seems to be primary topic of his common name, "William Waldorf Astor", which already links here.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why turn an unambiguous title into an ambiguous one? The WP:NCPEER convention creates unique titles in a consistent format which are readily understandable,  In this case it is well set up, with all the related articles clearly signposted and connected through dab pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, at least compared to just "William Astor", it's actually not so ambiguous. Second (and more importantly), the Viscount title isn't part of his WP:COMMONNAME and fails WP:CONCISE, which matters more than WP:NCPEER because article policies carry more weight than article guidelines. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the guideline we have used for the naming of articles on peers for years. If you disagree with it, surely you'd be better off discussing the guideline than trying to change a single article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above the guideline makes exceptions which we are trying to use. No need to change the guideline as it already accommodates cases like this. And if all else fails then we should WP:IGNORE the guideline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

'Support of peace'
In the months before his death, Astor was criticized [for his] support of peace during World War I...
 * This is not referenced. What was his agenda in WW1? Valetude (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

✅ I looked into this. It may be confusion with his son who was more active politically and president of the Plymouth League of Nations Union. Anyway, the phrase no longer appears in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)