Talk:Pablo Casals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Classical music
WikiProject icon Pablo Casals is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking Countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Spain (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for comment[edit]


Consensus is clear the name most common to English speakers, "Pablo" should generally be used. NE Ent 15:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

The cellist Pablo Casals is typically known as Pablo Casals in English texts, but as Pau Casals to Catalan speakers. The established consensus on Talk:Pablo Casals is for the article Pablo Casals to use Pablo, but the issue of which name to use on other articles has never been properly discussed. There exist some Wikipedia articles related to Catalonia that mention Casals. For some of these articles, the original editor happened to use the name Pau. My question for editors is whether the less common Pau should remain in these articles without any clarification that Pau Casals is actually the famous Pablo Casals. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities:

  • Option one: change Pau to Pablo
  • Option two: keep Pau and include a note that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals
  • Option three: keep Pau and remove any mention of Pablo

I have included below further information about the history of the dispute, evidence confirming that Pablo is the common name and copies of relevant Wikipedia guidelines. (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

1. History of problem[edit]

Around a week ago, I came across the name Pau Casals in a Wikipedia article. After searching, it turned out that this is the well-known Pablo Casals. There is consensus on Talk:Pablo Casals for Pablo to be used on the article because Pablo is used overwhelmingly in English. I performed a search on Wikipedia and found some pages that still used Pau and changed them in good faith to Pablo. The user User:In ictu oculi reverted my edit on El cant dels ocells and gave a Google Books search link to ask which name is more common. The link given, however, actually indicates that Pablo is used more often in English in relation to the song (see 'Evidence'). Still, the user opposed my changes ('So if you don't mind would you please not insert "Pablo" into the article until there is some consensus to ban the musician's Catalan name from every en.wikipedia article.'). I tried to discuss this further with the user, but he seemed to ignore the evidence I was presenting. Since it appeared as if he opposed my removal of Pau in Catalan-related articles, I changed my edits to include Pau alongside Pablo, explaining that Pau is his Catalan name and Pablo is his Spanish name. The other user again opposed these edits and reverted even more of them ('I reverted [these articles] where forcing a Spanish name into a Catalan-titled Catalan culture article seems particularly inappropriate'.). I asked the other user numerous times whether he opposes any use of Pablo in these articles to help the reader, whilst citing sources indicating that Pablo is the common name and related Wikipedia guidelines, but he or she refused to answer, claiming my question was 'pointy'. He or she has now stopped replying to all comments about this issue, meaning that the discussion cannot develop. I posted on WP:EAR for assistance on this issue. A helpful user (User:Spinningspark) gave me his or her advice and also suggested I post to WP:RFC. Because the other user appears unwilling to accept any of my comments or engage in further discussion, I have decided to seek suggestions through WP:RFC.

2. Evidence that Pablo Casals is the common English name[edit]

There is significant evidence that Pablo Casals is used more often to Pau Casals in English sources, both generally and in relation to more specific matters. I have provided below what I have already found. Please note that it is very difficult to rely on standard Google searches (the type that give hundreds of thousands of hits). The reason for this is that it gives many foreign sources and it cannot determine which name a source prefers if a source mentions both somewhere. For example, if one types 'Pau Casals' into, excluding the six Youtube videos (of which four use Pablo and two Pau), three websites use Pablo primarily and one uses Pau primarily, even though we are searching for Pau. Please note that the order of search results might change over time: this means that the numbers I have given below might be slightly different if they were counted again.

3. General mentions of Casals[edit]

A very quick way is to compare the number of hits we get for an Amazon music search for Pablo and Pau. Pablo gives 400 results and Pau gives 38 results:
This is not completely precise, though, because results for Orquestra Pau Casals and incorrect metadata might cause some results to be over counted. A possible alternative is simply to type Casals into Amazon and to filter those results not related to the cellist Casals. I have just done this for the first four pages of results: 34 use Pablo, 1 uses Pau and 3 do not give enough information.
Further, we can consider mentions of Casals in books. In Google Books, 'Pablo Casals' gives 85900 hits and 'Pau Casals' gives 17600.
Because of the concerns I gave for general Google searches, the reliability of these can be doubted. For this reason, I searched 'Casals' and went through the uses on the first three pages of results: 17 use Pablo, 0 use Pau and 2 do not give enough information:

4. Casals and El cant dels ocells[edit]

The other user initially gave the below link to ask which name is most common when referring to El cant dels ocells:
At first, one might think that Pau is more common. This is not correct, however. Firstly, many of the results are for non-English (Catalan) sources, and so should be excluded. Secondly, some results only mention Casals in the sections given on the page: one has to click on the actual book to find whether the book uses Pablo or Pau. I have looked through the first three pages of results: excluding foreign results, 11 use Pablo, 2 use Pau and 1 does not given enough information.

Why do Catalan sources have to be excluded? Does the English language Wikipedia exclude Sanskrit sources when discussing Hinduism or the Veddas? Which means, are all English Wikipedia editors monolingual? How can anybody pretend to have any scholar intentions if they can't understand sources in the original languages? This reminds be of Western Orientalists, or Arabists, who pretend to know other cultures better than the scholars of those cultures themselves. Pure Anglosaxon chauvinism. This is an unsigned comment by (talk).
Catalan sources were excluded, not because we are unable to use foreign sources to help write articles, but because it is important to ascertain the name that English speakers use for Casals. This is because English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for English speakers. If you scroll down to 'Wikipedia guidelines' and read the first bullet point (MOS:FOREIGN), you will see it stipulates that the decision on which name to choose relies on what is common in English sources. (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

5. Casals and Catalonia[edit]

Because of the other user's focus on using only Pau on Catalan articles, I performed a specific search for books on Catalan musicians. I managed to find four such books written in English. Two use Pablo and two use Pau. The small sample size is problematic, but it still appears sufficient to suggest that Pablo is often used in Catalan related texts outside Wikipedia.

6. Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

As you know (probably better than I do), Wikipedia has some guidelines as to what should be done in these kinds of situations. I have found the following recommendations that might be relevant. Frustratingly, a lot of the description of 'common name' occurs with respect to the article title rather than the body of the article. I have still found the following, though:

  • MOS:FOREIGN: 'Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. ... For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. If a foreign term does not appear in the article's references, adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias).'
  • WP:EN: 'If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.'
  • WP:LINK: 'Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. ... Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.'
  • WP:SURPRISE: 'When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be ... surprised or overwhelmingly confused by your article.’

Many other guidelines exist that explicitly concern the use of a common name. I have not copied these here because they relate primarily to the titles of articles. They might still be relevant, however.

7. Would Casals be offended by the use of Pablo?[edit]

This seems like a silly caption, but it appears as if a lot of the opposition to Pablo is based on issues of Catalan nationalism by current users, not by the opinions of Casals himself. Whilst we do not tend to alter our usage to reflect a dead subject's preferences, hopefully mentioning this here might alleviate some concerns about Pablo causing offence. Below are links to three signatures made by Casals where he signs his name as Pablo (as posted on Talk:Pablo Casals in 2012). I must make a very important warning: the second link also contains a photograph that could be regarded by some as indecent. Please do not open the link if you would rather not see such an image. (the top-right photograph)
The signatures by themselves do not constitute evidence that suggest we use Pablo. I have included them merely to confirm that Casals seemingly did not oppose the use of Pablo. (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So now it comes to Catalan nationalism. Well, take this:
Personal memoirs and audiovisual media of the person expressing their opinions is preferable over other people's opinions -scholar or not- on that person.
Pau Casals is known to have been a Catalan patriot, and anybody who has the minimal knowledge about Spanish-Catalan relations can understand that by watching the aforementioned video. Call it nationalism if you like, we don't preach superiority or rights over other people, just claim our right to being identified as Catalans above being Spanish. You don't know anything about being offended or not. Pau Casals might have not been offended during many years of his life, because either he resigned himself to Spanish imposition, or out of fear. My uncle might have not feel offended back in the sixties for being called José, because Catalans living in Spain couldn't afford to get offended, lest the Spanish authorities abuse them, and had to sign papers as José. Nowadays he would. Pau Casals might have started his career as Pablo as to avoid any problems with Spanish authorities, but by the end of the dictatorship he was already declaring publicly his Catalan patriotism, so yes, he would have preferred his proper name, although it is true that we will never know if he would have been offended or not, or under which circumstances -age, person coming from, context of the conversation- he would have.
Wikipedia, like all governments and institutions around the world, uses Beijing, not Pequing, because the Chinese decided so, regardless of the unsurmountable evidence of centuries of the written use of Pequing, Pequin, Pekin...not Beijing. Maybe we'll have to wait until Catalonia becomes independent to start seeing a change in attitudes. Well, even these attitudes coming from a -I suppose- non-Spanish citizen help the cause. Thank you. This is an unsigned comment by (talk).
It is not for Wikipedia to speculate on what Casals would have done given certain political changes. Instead, we follow Wikipedia guidelines. You can see these in the 'Wikipedia guidelines' sectin above. Another important guideline is WP:NPOV. This explains how editors must use a netural point of view when editing articles. I hope you can see that your comment comes across as being very pro-Catalan at the expensive of editing neturality. Your final sentence about Beijing emphasises why Pablo should be used across Wikipedia: it is for the same reason that Wikipedia uses Beijing instead of Peking (common name). (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.


Please post your comments below.

  • This user is the user who submitted the above question and who performed the original edits.
Support option one or option two. As explained above, Pablo is the common name in English. It is reasonable to believe that very many English speakers will not realise that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals (I did not realise this until very recently, for example, and I have heard of Pablo Casals for many years). Even if a link such as Pau Casals were made, many users would not click the link. There is no excuse for obfuscating such an important relationship. The whole point of Wikipedia is to help readers, and excluding Pablo from all Catalan articles prevents this. I would not mind whether Pau is included too, as long as Pablo is there for clarification. (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The presentation of options is subtly biased. I mention this without any intent of impugning the motives of the RfC proposer, as I believe the RfC was opened in good faith.
Suggest reword the options as follows, with no editorial commentary included in the descriptions of the options:
  • Option one: change Pau to Pablo
  • Option two: keep Pau and include a note that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals
  • Option three: keep Pau and do not include a note that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals Dezastru (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There should be a fourth option:
  • Option four: whether to use Pau or Pablo in a given article should be determined by the sources cited in the article Dezastru (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for assuming good faith, Dezastru. I included the editorial commentary to try and summarise the arguments given before, but, now these are given in more than enough detail immediately after the question, I have removed them. I am grateful for your recommendations. There is a problem with your suggestion for option three: some of these articles already include Pablo alongside Pau. This means option three will include the removal of Pablo from the articles, which your recommended wording does not describe. I think it is important to mention this, because there is an important difference between not including Pablo and deleting Pablo.
I am a little unsure about what you are trying to describe by your fourth option (although I am happy for it to be added if others agree it is suitable). I have looked through the five main articles in dispute, and, unfortunately, they include very few references, if any at all, that mention Casals. Without doing something like a Google Books search for each topic, it would be problematic to determine usage in such a way. The articles in question are all very similar: articles that relate to Catalan culture somehow that mention Casals somewhere. Because they are so similar, I believe it is possible to determine common usage for them collectively. Of course, your option four might have another problem: editors might add lots of sources that agree with the name they prefer just for the name to be changed (for example, I could edit an article to include lots of mentions of Pablo and so claim that the name in the article should be changed to Pablo). I hope you can understand my concerns with this option, although it should not prevent you from suggesting it if that is what you would prefer. Please let me know if you want to talk about this further. Thank you for your feedback, by the way. I am glad that this discussion can start taking its proper course. (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
What are the 5 main articles in dispute to which you refer? Dezastru (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The five articles to which I alluded are the five where In ictu oculi reverted the edits ('where forcing a Spanish name into a Catalan-titled Catalan culture article seems particularly inappropriate'). These are El cant dels ocells, Palau de la Música Catalana, List of Catalans, Francesc Pujols and Josep Maria Corredor i Pomés. I have just performed some Google Books searches and can report the following. All of these statistics are for English results where the usage can be determined (some results are foreign and some results are in English but I cannot find any mention of Pablo or Pau).
El cant dels ocells. This has already been discussed above. Just so it is repeated here, for the first thre pages of 'casals "El cant dels ocells"', 11 use Pablo and 2 use Pau.
Palau de la Música Catalana. On the first two pages for 'Palau de la Música Catalana casals', 8 use Pablo and 2 use Pau.
The article List of Catalans is simply a list, rather than a standard article. For this reason, it ostensibly does not mean as much to search for references. I can repeat what I wrote above, though, where, in the very specific search for English books on Catalan musicians, 2 use Pablo and 2 use Pau.
Francesc Pujols. Unfortunately, I could not find any relevant entries when searching 'Francesc Pujols casals'. Intead, on the first two pages for 'Pujols casals', 5 use Pablo and 2 use Pau.
Josep Maria Corredor i Pomés. On the first page for 'Josep Maria Corredor i Pomés casals' (the results on the second page are entirely unrelated to the search, for some reason), 2 use Pablo and 1 uses Pau.
Please let me know if you have any further questions about these. I hope it indicates to you that there appears no reason to claim that Pau is more common in English for any specific topic, no matter how closely related to Catalonia it is. (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This user is the user mentioned above who opposed the original edits.
Oppose options 1-to-3 loaded RFC, Support Option 4 per WP:ENGVAR as Dezastru - noting as Dezastru says "The presentation of options is subtly biased" - English print sources use Pablo/Pau in about 3:1 proportion related to the topic. Pablo in general musical context, Pau in relation to Catalonian music and culture. Wikipedia can do the same as print sources without a ban on Catalan names. This is what we do for other cross-cultural naming, the most discussed case being Talk:Gdansk/Vote and the same applying for British/American spellings with WP:ENGVAR where spelling follows local context of articles and sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this is that WP:ENGVAR concerns varieties of English, such as whether we use aluminium or aluminum, whilst this is about a foreign name. The difference with Gdánsk/Danzig is that both names are used commonly in English. Note that, even in this case, the guidelines state that 'the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names' , which corresponds to option two here. Please may you provide evidence that Pau is preferred in relation to Catalonian music? Concerning the Catalan El cant dels ocells, which is the article that was the cause of dispute, Pablo is preferred 11 to 2 (see above). (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1, accept option 2, reject option 3 I have heard Maestro Casals' recordings for many years now and I did not know anything about Pau until today. The nominator has made it undeniable that Pablo is the common name in English and therefore it should be used. Other than Catalan nationalism, why would one want to use Pau? It is a disservice to the readers. In ictu oculi has mentioned WP:ENGVAR above, yet that relates to varieties of English, which the Catalan Pau is clearly not. It is essential to use the name by which Casals is known to English speakers, which is Pablo. (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Note that this is effectively a WP:SPA, has not edited Wikipedia in recent years. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
As an anonymous user myself, I know very well how IP addresses can be shared between multiple people over time. This user could be someone who edits Wikipedia when he sees something of note and it is likely that he has just been assigned this address whilst the previous edits are from an entirely different person. It is most important that we assume good faith here. (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 - This is not Catalan Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia. If we were to respect the original language of others, thousands of names would have to be altered and rendered confusing or unrecognizable. I've seen unpublished letters to Casals and they never call him anything but Pablo. Even for Perpignon Festival pamphlets, it's always Pablo. -- kosboot (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Kosboot - How many unpublished letters to Casals have you seen, from whom and why should they be considered more reliable than English academic reference works, or indeed Casal's own signature on the Sony Casal's edition CDs? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, the same CD contains the typed name Pablo, as do the majority of his published recordings (see above). Also above, I have posted three links that show Casals signing his name as Pablo. In addition, also above, English academic reference works chiefly use Pablo. A user in a previous discussion remarked that The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians does so, arguably the most important of reference works concerning musicians. (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've seen a lot of unpublished Casals letters because I work in a major music library. I also wonder whether this survey has been invalided because the user keeps on responding to everyone they disagree with. To me that borders on harassment. And why don't you register? -- kosboot (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Kosboot, I am extremely apologetic if you believe my approach might have come across as harassing in any kind of way imaginable. If you do think it has, or if you would like me to amend something I have written, please let me know. Almost all of my responses have been directed to In ictu oculi, since we are the two editors between whom this dispute has arisen. From what I understand, this should be a place where other editors post their opinions and discuss the issue rather than simple vote-counting. I have tried to support all of my assertions with reliable references. If you have any suggestions for me, please let me know. The reason I have not registered is because I know I would feel obliged to make more of an effort on Wikipedia if I had an account. I use Wikipedia very often and typically make small edits when I see little mistakes or consistencies. The reason why I became involved in this is because I came across Pau in an article and did not recognise it. I have considered getting an account before, but I have always come to the conclusion that it would cause me to spend more time editing than I should. My IP address is currently stable because I am using my university's computers during term time, yet my IP address changes during vacations. I understand that editing anonymously might seem strange or counterintuitive, but I hope you understand my reasoning. Thank you for all of your help so far. (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1. It is the overwhelmingly common name in English. Omitting it will inevitably leave some readers in the dark, as would using Mikołaj Kopernik instead of that astronomer's common English name. This does not mean a ban: If in context there is a useful, non-POV-pushing reason to note the Catalan name, then note it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose options 1-to-3 The proposer is asking for an inflexible Wikipedia-wide rule without having established why is it essential that only a single way of handling this name be allowed for all Wikipedia articles. The options have been chosen in such a way as to directly conflict with the existing guideline, MOS:FOREIGN, which clearly says that the decision on which version of a foreign name to use should be made in the context of each individual article based on the sources for that article, not according to a single name variant ruling to be applied across the whole encyclopedia.
For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. If a foreign term does not appear in the article's references, adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources (for example other English-language dictionaries and encyclopedias).
So the proposer's statement that "Pablo is the common name in English" is misleading, as it is a general statement about which name variant is more common in all contexts rather than in the specific contexts of individual article topics.
In addition, the proposer has not explained why it is absolutely necessary for there to be a black-and-white rule on whether to mention that Pau Casals is also known as Pablo Casals in all articles in which Pau is used. Perhaps a parenthetical note mentioning that Pau is also known as Pablo is appropriate for some articles but not necessary for other articles. Why can't such decisions be decided on a case-by-case basis, according to the context of the individual articles? Dezastru (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Dezastru. I have actually copied that part of MOS:FOREIGN above in the section 'Wikipedia guidelines'. The reason why I have posted a general question here is that this issue affects numerous articles, and I think it would have been problematic to post this same question on every such article. If the community thinks that would be more appropriate, however, then that could be done. The important aspect of MOS:FOREIGN is adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article. The article that has been discussed most so far is El cant dels ocells. Even in this Catalan-related article, Pablo is preferred 11 to 2 (see the 'Evidence' section above). In other words, regardless of the actual topic were Casals is mentioned, Pablo is more prominent in English. If you can think of a place where this is not true, please let me know. The general prevalence of Pablo over Pau in these topics is the reason why it seems possible to have a general guideline for usage. (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Due to a previous comment by Dezastru, I have performed similar searches for the four other articles that have been specifically mentioned so far. The results are given in more detail above. Just so that it is noted here, for the other Catalan-related articles, there is no evidence that Pau is more common than Pablo: if anything, the converse is true. (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1. – Pablo Casals has only one well-known name in English, and that's what we should be using. The alternative name can be mentioned, or used in quotes, but is not what we should use to refer to him. In many cases, just saying Casals will be OK, too. Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Dicklyon, looking at sources I think it may still be true that Pablo Casals only has one well-known name in American English, but European English is these days more accustomed to Catalan place and people names, and Catalan language itself, as a result of the regionalisation of the EU. Among the 3,340 results for "Pau Casals" in English books since 1990 the first hit Encyclopedia of Contemporary Spanish Culture 1999 is edited by professor Eamonn J Rodgers of the University of Strathclyde (soon to become Srath Chluaidh in an independent Scotland perhaps). Some of those are hits for Orquestra Pau Casals of course. British sources naturally picked up on Franco-era repression and xenophobia against Catalan names, but that doesn't appear to be the case today; when Encyclopedia of Contemporary Spanish Culture has an entry under "Casals, Pau". and doesn't even mention Pablo it seems strange for en.wikipedia to be introducing a Franco-era type ban on the name of one of the most famous Catalans.

"They formed the embryo of the Orquestra Pau Casals. It was natural for me to use the Catalan name "Pau" in preference to the Spanish "Pablo." When I was young, it was still the custom in Catalonia to use Spanish baptismal names. And so I'd been called Pablo. But I later came to much prefer my Catalan name — Catalan, after all, is the true language of my people. More than once I'd told my managers I wanted to use the name "Pau" in my concert tours. But they'd argue, "Audiences have come to think of you as Pablo Casals. Nobody will know who Pau Casals is." But now, in naming my own orchestra, I no longer felt under this restriction."." Casals' autobiography Joys and sorrows 1974 p.154

We don't respect Casal's wishes in the title of his bio because of WP:COMMONNAME. That is one thing, but WP:ENGVAR goes against a blanket ban on the name used in many English sources in our Catalan culture articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for your unsupported assertion that Pau is more common in European English? From all of the evidence gathered so far, Pablo is far more common. Once again, incidentally, WP:ENGVAR is about variants of English, and this is not an English name. Out of interest, let us go through the top ten results in your search for ' "pau casals" '
Results one and two: Encyclopedia of Contemporary Spanish Culture. Uses Pau.
Result three: HTML for the World Wide Web. Not a very relevant result at all, but uses both Pablo and Pau.
Result four: The 20th Century A-GI: Dictionary of World Biography . Uses Pablo.
Result five: Alberto Ginastera: A Research and Information Guide - Page 84. Uses Pablo.
Result six: Orchestral Music: A Handbook. Does not use either.
Result seven: 100 Hispanics You Should Know. Uses Pablo.
Result eight: Doves of War: Four Women of Spain. Uses both Pablo and Pau.
Result nine: Unusual World Coins. Not very relevant, but uses Pau.
Result ten: Spain and Portugal: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance. Uses Pablo.
Even in your specific search for results for Pau Casals, Pablo comes up more often. I am unconvinced that you can justify that Pau is somehow common.
On an unrelated note, please note that this discussion should have nothing to do with 'Franco era repression and xenophobia': it is about common English usage and the style that Wikipedia should use. Not following WP:NPOV will causes problems. (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI concerning the editing of In ictu oculi, in particular, his references to specific Catalan politics that are unrelated to this request for comments. I hope that this discussion can continue in a neutral manner, ignoring any kind of personal feelings, political or not. (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I said may be, a look through the authors of books using the Catalan name since 1990, suggests that the use of the Catalan name is relatively more common in books published in Europe since 1990, than in America since 1990, perhaps given the use of Catalan in the EU, and use of Spanish in America. I could be wrong. As to the Franco era attitude to Catalan names I'm making an observation of an issue that is well documented in sources: see Google Book results Franco "catalan names". As to your own observation "but it is starting to become apparent that he is pushing a pro-Catalan viewpoint, as much as I hate to make such allegations." ... in context of "Catalan" since 1990 1050 results vs 1,730 results indicates a 1050:1730 preference for one over the other. It doesn't indicates 100% use of one. This has been said before. Bear in mind that User:Dezastru's Option 4 is just about allowing "Pau" in a minority of articles (which I support), whereas your Option 1 is a blanket ban on all and any uses of Pau, undoing the work of dozens of editors in almost all the major Catalan culture articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your helpful reply, In ictu oculi. I can understand your reasoning for your assertion and the associated uncertainty, but I cannot see that Pau is so much more popular in Europe that it could be considered to be a common name or even recognisable to many English speakers. For some reason, the search result hits do not appear on my computer, but I trust you have given them correctly. Even in this specific Catalan search, Pablo still apparently comes up more often. Of course we do have to be careful with comparing hits like that, because many books that appear do not correspond to the search input (which is why I have previously gone through search listings one by one). I am aware that controversy exists concerning Catalonia and Franco. I was trying to emphasise that we should not be basing our discussion or decision here on this type of political issue. It is inevitable that politics can cause heated debates and problems with any kind of discussion. It is important that we ignore that and use a neutral point of view to come to a conclusion about the usage of Pablo and Pau in English, without any type of underlying political consideration. I just want you to know my feelings regarding your final sentence. I have absolutely no desire that Pau is removed from Wikipedia. I made the original edits in good faith and, after reading how strongly you felt about including Pau in Catalan-related articles, I restored it. I understand that some users would wish Pau to be used in these articles, which is why I have supported option two above (not just option one). My whole reasoning for requesting comments from other editors is that I believe it is important that Pablo is also included, simply because Pau is unusual for so many English speakers. I would happily change one of these articles so that it uses Pau throughout but also includes a tiny note next to the first mention of Pau (essentially option two), in the same way that the guidelines for the Gdánsk/Danzig situation specify. Because you also opposed this solution, I inserted this request for comments to get advice from the general community. I added option one because it seems like a reasonable possibility and not because it is what I prefer. I am simply arguing for the inclusion of Pablo to help readers and I would be satisfied with using Pau throughout a Catalan article. I am not sure what you mean by 'undoing the work of dozens of editors in almost all the major Catalan culture articles'. None of this work would be done: the request only deals with the name used for one person in the article. (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
So are you now supporting Option 2 or option 4? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I support both option one and option two: I do not mind what is done as long as Pablo is added for clarity. I would be happy if we omitted Pau altogether because it is not common usage in English (option one) and I would be happy if we included Pau in Catalan-related articles but also made it clear that Pau is Pablo (option two). My opposition is solely to writing Pau without any mention of the common name. As I have explained above (see 00:19 on 2 March), option four, as worded by Dezastru, is problematic. Determining usage solely by the sources cited in the article might incite some editors to add unnecessarily many references that agree with their own preference, which will cause trouble and disruption. If there is an article where Pau is predominant (although I do not think anyone has found such an article yet), then my other problem with option four is that, as worded, it suggests that only Pau will be included. I hope this has explained my preferences (please let me know if it has not). (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 Casals may have been Pau at home, but he is Pablo on his recordings in the English speaking world. (Including the one 78 I have of him - I'm not a great fan of the cello repertoire.) The Catalan WP can call him Pau - that's not our problem. Stage names aren't the same as home names. Examples? Reginald Dwight, Harry Webb, Marshall Mathers, and Albert Frederick Arthur George (better known as King George V). Peridon (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 2 – This allows both names to be mentioned while keeping factual accuracy. Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 - "Pablo" is the common name in English of this artist, the only way he was known to the general public, and the use of any other name would be confusing to the reader. "Pau" should be reserved only for use in direct quotation. (Of course, it goes without saying that this article can explain the circumstances under which he was known as "Pau".) Using "Pau" would be the equivalent of referring to playwright A. R. Gurney as "Pete", the name he is known by to his family, friends and co-workers. BMK (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1. Option 2 is far too clumsy. There may be rare cases in which the use of Pau is appropriate (quotations, most obviously). Readers should not be confused. Paul B (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1. #2 might work better for me if it were to keep Pablo and note that his birth/native name is Pau. #3 is right out per WP:ENGVAR/WP:COMMONNAME. This is English Wikipedia. Catalan Wikipedia rightly calls the article Pau Casals, just as Chinese Wikipedia rightly calls the article 帕布罗·卡萨尔斯: it's how the individual is called in that language. While I doubt that most of the other Wikipedias' variations (a large number of others use Pau, though a few holdouts have stuck with Pablo) have done the intensive investigation into the naming issue that we have here, it's just common sense that on Wikipedia you represent the name of something in the manner best supported by the sources, whether a person's name (with BLP concerns being a very narrow category of exceptions), or the name of a fruit (e.g., apple vs. manzana). While I personally find the facts behind Spanish oppression of the Catalan language and culture tremendously tragic, this cannot affect how we present cases like Casals, where there's no clear indication he made an issue of it during his life. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Mendaliv, hi. As I understand it MOS:TIES doesn't relate to Casals' own frustrations and attempts to use his Catalan name, MOS:TIES relates to WP:RS as they are now (say from 1990 in e.g. 59 results vs 49 results) at least this is how we seem to apply MOS:TIES to Irish and Czech names. The reason that 10% (30 of 305) articles had "Pau" instead of "Pablo" prior to's removal of "Pau" in that 10%, was a product of article creators/builders following MOS:TIES in that those 10% were articles about Catalan culture/nationalism not generic classical music articles. ( addition to the WP:ARTCON problem with zig zags noted at the end of the section above the RfC). Although it's clear that the consensus of the RFC is to uphold's removal of "Pau" from those 10% of articles, the MOS:TIES and WP:ARTCON guidelines mean that future article editors will probably unknowingly create and edit articles which follow English sources using "Pau". How do we intend to police the inevitable re-occurrence of "Pau" after this RfC? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Well first, I don't agree that MOS:TIES dictates that outcome: that portion of the guideline has to do with what English variant we use depends on whether there are strong national ties to a particular English variant. As far as I know, any variation in what name different English speakers use to refer to Casals is independent of what national variant of English they speak. My point in disqualifying option #3 might be better expressed as a logical extension of the policy behind ENGVAR, and again, perhaps more properly be called an application of COMMONNAME. We should use the common name in English for Casals, just as we use the common name in English in the article on pineapple (though we also use the scientific binomial where appropriate, just as we introduce Casals full birth name). As to how the consensus emerging here might be enforced, and future articles be kept in line, the solution is the same as for any other issue of applying past consensus on Wikipedia: where someone notices something that varies from consensus, that person should BOLDly bring that article in line with consensus. There is no deadline, so it's not a problem if it's not instantaneous. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Of course I meant that WikiProject Spain editors (be they Catalan, Castillian, Basque or Anglo) were applying the spirit/logic of MOS:TIES in English sources (which is why I mentiond 59 results vs 49 results) but it could easily have been said for Czech/German etc. As long as future article creators and contributors are not dissuaded from growing the encyclopedia by this action, there shouldn't be a problem. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose option 1 per neutral point of view, favor option 2 (maybe reversed, i.e. keep Pablo but use Pau as clarification). It's clear that there are political issues involved in every subject related to Catalan language under the Franco regime; that English sources in that era adopted the common Spanish name was a consequence of the Catalan language repression, so WP:POVNAMING is applicable here - it's OK to use the common recognizable name in English, but it should not be the only use. Using only Pablo would be not neutral, and it would hinder recognition by a world-wide audience; I live in Spain, I am not Catalan, and I had never heard of the name "Pablo Casals" - the Catalan name is universally used here, and I would have had doubts that it was the same musician (in fact I had to check it was the same person when seeing this RfC), as the Spanish name is largely abandoned (I find it credible that it's the same case in European English usage). Diego (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 This is English WP and the rules are pretty clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly support option 1 - while I'm not against identifying him as Pau if appropriate, the vast majority of English references refer to him as Pablo. See above note on Copernicus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Option 1 would work in most cases, when the reference is from the mid-century onwards, but there are earlier cases where option one would be flat-out wrong. Early in the 20th century Casals recorded under both names and this elicited commentary using both names. It wasn't until his popularity increased that the recording name "Pablo" became popular and Pau was lost. When discussing this early time period it would be wrong to erase the name Pau. For example, many of the HMV recordings, including the famous run of Bach Suites, was originally released under "Pau Casals". Removing this note would cover up a little nuance of history which we should be explaining, not smoothing over. As an aside, this smoothing over of history is part of why I am bothered by the "use common name" philosophy. ThemFromSpace 21:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If one looks at any number of WP entries with people who changed their names, consistency appears to be the main criteria, not a reflection of who they are at any point in their lifetimes. See Stokely Carmichael, Yusuf Islam, Lady Gaga, Renée Richards and any number of transgender people for starters. -- kosboot (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the case: Cat Stevens 451 articlesYusuf Islam 90 articles (with overlap). We are only talking about allowing Pau to remain in 10% of 300 articles - 30 articles which largely use Catalan names for the other places and people in the MOS:TIES WP:ENGVAR articles (as do the English books on Catalan culture and nationalism which use Pau). And WP:ARTCON is a more important criteria within articles than WP:TITLE consistency which only applies to consistency between article titles, not in-article consistency. This is how our Irish articles work - we use both Seán T. O'Kelly / Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh in-article according to context of article, the same as reliable sources do, just as reliable sources use both Pablo and Pau according to context, or indeed the same person being "Mike", "Mick" and "Michael" in different sources/articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that these options are proposed for a general rule. Option 2 was "keep Pau and include a note that Pau Casals is Pablo Casals". If this means that it's intended to be a general rule for the form of his name in Wikipedia, it's far too clumsy, as has already been said. Option 1 as a general rule or norm is far more sensible. This does not alter the fact that there will be specific cases in which the use of "Pau" is appropriate. Option 1 is not about "banning" "Pau" from Wikipedia as has been claimed. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Paul, thanks but the majority of those responding have supported Option one: change Pau to Pablo which is what has already done in the 30 of the 305 which had "Pau". Any admin closing will have to be bound by what Option 1 says and the support given for Option 1. In ictu oculi and the RFC clearly specifies " whether the less common Pau should remain in these articles ", 30 articles. We are not discussing the 275 articles which already have Pablo. User:In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read this comment several times, and I still can't make head nor tail of it. Firstly, I already voted for option 1 above. Secondly, I am trying to clarify that banning Pau would make no sense, and your reading of option 1 makes no sense either. No one is "bound" by rigid wording. We are trying to come a reasonable decision. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Paul, has already implemented Option 1, so it is evident that Option 1 means what Option 1 says. In road/museum/orchestra names, such C-32 highway (Spain) "southern section, also known as Autopista de Pau Casals" Option 1 is not applicable and has (rightly) left those. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, ThemFromSpace. I have tried to search for more information about how popular Pablo and Pau were in different periods of time, but I have not been able to find too much. I have found this link, though, which searches for 'Pablo Casals' and 'Pau Casals' in books and displays them in a chart, with the results ordered according to time period. According to the graph, Pablo has always been more popular than Pau, especially during his 1930s recording of the Bach cello suites. (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, no on has ever denied this, just as "Pablo" was more popular than "Pau" in Wikipedia -- and Pablo was used in 90% of 300 articles until you made that 100% by unilaterally removing "Pau" from the other 10% of articles (30 articles). There is no need for you to "prove" what has never been denied, that "Pablo" is more popular in English, we all know that. What you need to a WP:Guideline that supports a ban on variant names like "Mike" for "Michael" within articles, or saying that Irish and English names for Irish historical figures can't be used in different articles. You can't claim that English sources have a 100% Pablo policy to justify your option 1. because your option 1., a blanket removal of Pau from all 300 articles, is not what your own ngram shows. In fact the % in the ngram for Pau in the 1950s is bigger than the 10% Wikipedia had before you removed the 10%. The same is evidently true of 2000-2014 as Google Books shows. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no guideline, In ictu oculi, that suggests that usage on Wikipedia should directly reflect what is done generally within the English language (for example, about 5% of English sources using Pau (and it is about 5% on the Ngram, not 10%) meaning that Wikipedia should use Pau on about 5% of its articles). I have already provided guidelines that support Pablo that you have ignored. Some of these are given in the 'Wikipedia guidelines' section above. The most relevant one, in MOS:FOREIGN, is 'For foreign names ... adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article ... adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources. . You have already admitted that Pablo is vastly more common ('There is no need for you to "prove" what has never been denied, that "Pablo" is more popular in English, we all know that.'). Instead, you are cherry-picking erroneous 'rules' to support your own preference, for example, by suggesting that about 10% of Wikipedia articles should use Pau and by claiming that WP:ENGVAR concerns foreign names. (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • Support option 1 The common English name should be consistently used in the English-language Wikipedia, as established by guidelines. If the sources use an uncommon name (e.g. Pau), then the article where the name appears can note that the uncommon name actually refers to a person with a different common English name (e.g., Pablo). Those editors who oppose the guideline would be better off arguing for a change in the guideline rather than this specific implementation of the guideline, as it currently stands. Factchecker25 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support option 1 By Wikipedia guidelines (section 6 above), the Pablo should be used. Nationalism is not an exception to this, no matter what "In icut oculi" believes., welcome to Wikipedia, actually WP:COMMONNAME relates to titles not article body which is why it is part of WP:TITLE. Within article body the relevant MOS guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says: Style and formatting should be consistent in an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. use of one Spanish name in a sentence with several Catalonian names in an article on Catalonia is not consistent. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Amen to that. It's worth repeating for all those basing their arguments on common name, that WP:COMMONNAME does NOT apply to this debate. IMHO previous style guidelines about English variety have little applicability here, as there's nothing in them about how to handle variety between two non-English languages; WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are all about what happens when there are disagreement between usages of English, but neigher Pablo nor Pau are English names, they are MOS:FOREIGN; so other general policies and guidelines like WP:POVNAMING and WP:ARTCON, that apply to all content, should be given more weight. Diego (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Your ignorance is tedious, In ictu oculi. Have you not read section 6 above? The sentence you highlighted is a note in the lede not a proper guideline. The actual guideline about article consistency WP:ARTCON, which is about different varieties of English. Other users have already told you this. Diego, MOS:FOREIGN says (in section 6) "'Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article. ... For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article" This is why the common name matters.
again WP:SPA single edit, it really would help if editors could sign in In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
"Pablo Casals" is not in the title of the 300 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article Well, that sentence implies that the name Pau should be used in articles where the English sources included are those using the Catalan version of the name, doesn't it? Which is exactly what the proposal suggests should be done as option two in those particular cases (and is also what Dezastru suggests as option four), and which option one would forbid. I sincerely don't see the problem with mentioning both names in those articles where Catalan language is part of the context for the topic and appears in the available sources. Diego (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the anonymous user here, but the reason I have supported option one above (alongside option two), and perhaps the reason most others also have, is that Pablo appears to be most common in English sources regardless of the specific topic. The sections 'General mentions of Casals', 'Casals and El cant dels ocells' and 'Casals and Catalonia' describe how Pablo is more popular Pau generally, in relation to El cant dels ocells, and in books specific to Catalan musicians. Further, in the discussion straight after Dezastru's option four, I performed a similar analysis for the four other Catalan related articles with which In ictu oculi had a problem originally. Pablo is again more common here. For this reason, following MOS:FOREIGN and using the most common name in English sources would mean using Pablo everywhere, which is option one. The proposed option two is different in that it incorporates the use of the less-popular Pau on Catalan articles, where it could fit well with other Catalan names. You might wish to note that, before all of this, I suggested the equivalent to option two, but In ictu oculi again refused it, seemingly because he did not want Pablo to appear on these articles at all. (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • Support Option 1 I think the sources above show there really is no need for Pau when Pablo is so universal in English. The efforts of the two users arguing against consensus is admirable, but misguided and fundamentally biased. I am tempted to submit a closure request for this soon because no new points are being made. (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Note this is an SPA, and apparently one of the socks of the btcentralplus IP below See also language used in close request In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Option 1 In British English as well as in American English, Pablo is the common and well recognised name, and Pau is not widely recognised at all. There is no such thing as "European English" independent of British English. The mention of ENGVAR is a red herring since the question is not about variants of English. WP:EN is the relevant guideline. --Stfg (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Remark about closing. This request for comments is now in its fourth week, with the default duration of these requests being thirty days. The edit by (talk) has caused me to look into the procedure for closing. This appears to be given on WP:RFC and on WP:ANRFC. The latter page explains that Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. Going through the comments made by editors, it seems apparent that there is general consensus and it would be appropriate for the discussion to be closed. One should note that consensus 'does not mean unanimity', from which it follows that some editors might disagree with the result of the request. At least one of these editors, though, has recognised this consensus ('it's clear that the consensus of the RFC is to uphold's removal of "Pau" from those 10% of articles', as written by User:In ictu oculi). I shall refrain from closing the discussion until the end of the thirty day period. If there is no opposition to an ordinary close, then I would be happy to close it. On the other hand, if objections are provided, I shall submit it for a formal assessment. (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • One of the arguments raised is that the WP:COMMONNAME policy used by most !voters as justification for the removal is not applicable here, as it only refers to article titles, and the name Pau is not being proposed to appear at titles but only article content. That majority opinion could then be a local consensus that doesn't align with community standards. As neutrality issues have been raised agaisnt the full removal of the name Pau, I'd rather have an administrator experienced in policy doing the assessment. My interpretation of consensus (meaning a solution that find a compromise satisfying all parties involved, rather than a majority vote) is that many editors that favor option 1 wouldn't object to having the name Pau displayed in some cases; therefore using Pablo for content is preferred, but there shouldn't be a problem mentioning the name Pau once where it may make sense as a clarification that they're the same person. Diego (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful feedback, Diego. The reason that 'common name' is being brought up here is not because of WP:COMMONNAME, but because of MOS:FOREIGN, which contains 'adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references' and so relates to some kind of 'common name'. This is what editors are referring to, not the actual Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME (I hope you can see the difference between the two). Incidentally, I should add that I have supported option two alongside option one throughout this. I am happy for Pau to be included as long as it is made clear that this is Pablo: the only reason we are in this situation is that User:In ictu oculi was not satsified with this compromise and wanted Pablo to be removed entirely (option three). It would be problematic to claim that editors who favour option one would also be satisfied with option two, especially when editors have only voted for option one. Of course, I cannot see there being any disagreements if Pau were included where it could be helpful (for example, when introducing Orquestra Pau Casals), but it might be contentious on an article like Josep Maria Corredor i Pomés, where it only causes confusion. Concerning the close, I shall close the discussion after thirty days to stop it going on indefinitely and place a request on WP:ANRFC for an administrator to assess the discussion and make a judgement. (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • @IP on vacation from uni: I strongly advise against your closing this yourself: I know that even involved editors may close where there is a clear consensus, but this one is not as simple as that, and your involvement is too deep for justice to be seen to be done, that way. I know WP:ANRFC can take a while, but unless a storm blows up here, there's no harm in entertaining a few comments after the 30 days. --Stfg (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Stfg. I just want to check, when you say that you advise against closing it myself, do you mean ending the discussion and asking an administrator to make a judgement (as I described above) or making the judgement myself? After reading Diego's comment, I thought it would be best to collapse the discussion, submit a request to WP:ANRFC and wait to hear back. Thank you for your help: I am very grateful for your support. (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
(ec) Hi. I mean both. Until someone makes the judgement, there's nothing to be gained from collapsing it unless it becomes unconstructive. Fortunately, that hasn't happened yet. --Stfg (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and your support, Stfg. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
The request from the sock is already at requests for closure. Therefore there is no need to repeat the request. Under no circumstances should you close the RFC yourself. Given the misleading statements in the RFC proposal and also given even some of those who have 'supported Option 1 have expressed that they do not expect a complete ban on Casals preferred name from the remaining 10% of articles where you removed it, there is no clear consensus for an Option 1 close. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you should be very careful to claim that User: is a 'sock'. It could be an anonymous user who wishes not to have an account or even a registered user who forgot to log in to his or her account. Thank you for alerting me to the existing request, though. I shall update it after the thirty days to make it clear that it is ready for assessment. I am disappointed that you are claiming that the request for comments contains 'misleading statements'. I have supported every assertion I have made with references, both to Wikipedia guidelines and to English sources. What is misleading is your repeated assertion, even after being alerted to its inaccuracy, that WP:ENGVAR refers to foreign languages, to give just one example. You have already written twice elsewhere that there is consensus for option one, unlike your current feeling here. That explains why I thought you might have accepted an amicable close. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • Comment, I should declare that I have asked questions about the application of MOS:FOREIGN at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, and point out that the guideline clearly states "Sometimes the usage will be influenced by other guidelines such as National varieties of English, above, which may lead to different choices in different articles". which agrees with Wikipedia:Manual of Style which says: "Style and formatting should be consistent in an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia." already cited. So the earlier IP claim about MOS:FOREIGN appears to be incorrect. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This is clearly not a question of National varieties of English, since Casals is most commonly referred to as Pablo in all varieties of English. The relevant part of MOS:FOREIGN is "For foreign names, ... adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article." (my italics). So if we have an article in which the majority of English-language references call him Pau, then it would be right to use Pau; otherwise not. (Please could I ask you not to use that white-on-green mark-up and to redact the above? It gives the highlighted text undue prominence and makes it appear as if other points were being shouted down.) --Stfg (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree, with that too. I was only trying to highlight from the guideline being cited that it does not have this rule of consistency with the 1 title article across all 300 of the other 300 articles which has been claimed for it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If one reads the discussion at the page linked by In ictu oculi, one sees that the conclusion there corresponds to the consensus here: since Pablo is more common in English sources, then Pablo should be used. For example, the following is written there: 'there are plenty of instances where the two names are equally well-known, and the choice of article title is more or less by lottery'. This is not true here, however, since Pablo and Pau are not equally well-known: Pau is not common at all compared with Pablo. The same remark applies to 'where two names are in common use, it is to be expected that one of them will be "more commonly used" in the sources for some articles, and the other in the sources for other articles'; in our case, Pablo is most common for all articles, and so should be used. I cannot understand why In ictu oculi feels it necessary to try and bastardise the existing guidelines and conventions merely to suit his own personal feelings. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • Comment from an outsider who doesn't know (almost) anything about Casals. The attempt to 'standardize' the names used may violate WP:CENSOR in delicate/uncertain cases like this. A person has many attributes and the choice of which/what attribute to mention is entirely up to the context. The freedom to consider/choose the appropriate attribute for the context in other articles should not be taken away by a concensus/agreement in another. Wiki policies are prioritized - 1.Core content policies, 2.Other content policies, 3.Guidelines, 4.Conventions. When following one violates another, the one with the higher priority should be followed. Yiba (talk | contribs) 02:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Yiba. Please may you explain how WP:CENSOR applies here? I have read it and it does not seem relevant at all. The simple reason why this request for comments is taking place here is that the alternative would be for multiple versions to take place across various pages. As to not knowing much about Pablo Casals, I have summarised the required information above. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
Sorry, it's been a while since I actually read what it says on WP:CENSOR, and the content seems short on explaining what censorship means to Wikipedia. ("The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression" is a typical definition.) Although it is a complicated issue in Wikipedia's relationship with Internet Watch Foundation and laws of different countries, Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia says:"Wikipedia's policies state that it does not censor content "that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so," and as such only remove inappropriate content that is irrelevant, clearly vandalism, or illegal under the laws of the US State of Florida, where the site's servers were located.", and it is generally accepted within the community that it is Wikipedia's policy not to censor pages/contents with certain exceptions like the main page and problem areas including political sensitivity.
"Multiple versions of the name to appear across various pages" is a legitimate concern, and there have been cases of standardizing spelling, etc. of names of people. But these are implemented as conventions, and in rare cases as guidelines, which do not have the priority to override policies, and their enforcement is mostly (and informally) left with Wikiprojects with the expectation that the decision to enforce is based on concensus with understanding in Wiki policies and guidelines.
Let's assume I am writing (I don't see any reason why any of you shouldn't, and refer to it in the main Casals page) an article titled "Pablo Casals name controversy" with another redirect page "Pau Casals name controversy" that redirects to it, and want to describe Catalan views, Casals' view, Spanish views and English language issues. This is just one example of what I meant by context, and you see the reason in this context to use multiple versions. You cannot predict/assume/preclude/override context in other present and future articles, and enforcing standardization in sensitive/disputed cases is censorship in my view. Do you see "Wikipedia tries to describe a controversy, not to engage in it" in this example? Yiba (talk | contribs) 06:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that we would forbid mentions of the fact that his Catalan name is Pau when we're writing about the name. What we're talking about here is what name to use when we're referring the man himself. We have gazillions of such guidelines. For example, we don't use the date format 2014-03-28 in article text, and people will alter any such uses that are found. That isn't censorship, and it isn't what WP:CENSOR is talking about. --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't feel like actively engaging in this debate any more than I have. I presented my view and suggested a practical solution as a courtesy. Just let me call your attention to the first line in WP:GFFENSE, and that I feel "describing dispute" (Sorry, my previous quote was slightly incorrect. See the third line in WP:YESPOV.) would not only save your time and effort, but also would be far more productive to all. Yiba (talk | contribs) 01:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions, Yiba. I am trying to understand precisely what you are saying. By referencing WP:CENSOR, are you suggesting that we should not be hesitant to use Pablo, even though some (Catalans) might be offended, or the converse for Pau, or something else altogether? If we were to write an article titled 'Pablo Casals name controversy', then of course we must mention both names, or else the article would not make sense. As an example to the types of cases we are considering here, we have the following extract from Josep Maria Corredor i Pomés, which is the only place where Casals is mentioned in the article: 'Shortly he met the main figures from the Catalan exile such as Pompeu Fabra, Antoni Rovira i Virgili and Pau Casals to whom Corredor became personal secretary.'. We are trying to determine whether it is acceptable for only Pau to exist here when it is incredibly uncommon to English readers, whether it should be changed to the familiar Pablo, or whether we can include both names somehow. In terms of censorship, you might like to know that I attempted to use both names (see here:, but this was immediately reverted by In ictu oculi, who was seemingly unhappy for Pablo to appear at all. I meant this as a practical solution, but In ictu oculi's hostility and insistence resulted in this current request for comments. (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
Haha, your question is cleverly worded to pull me into this debate. Please take the first line of WP:GFFENSE which says "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored." to replace my previous use of [[WP:CENSOR]]. In a way, you are forcing me to state the following:
1. You apparently did not add a note on Talk:Josep_Maria_Corredor_i_Pomés (how about Wikipedia_Talk:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Literature who have indicated interest in it, and may pay much less attention to the RfC categories they belong?) that discussion is taking place elsewhere which may affect that article, and that editors concerned are invited.
2. I consider standardizing attempt in disputed cases to be censorship, yet two of your three suggested options for the discussion seem to result in such action, so my view point might suggest the selection/presentation of the options may be seriously flawed with hidden agenda, or at least not fair enough.
3. So while my position generally supports your argument, I have issues against as well.
4. I believe cultural conflicts within Wikipedia (which might be resolved in well-informed consensus --see the opening paragraph in WP:CONS) should not be resolved in voting.
5. Consequently, I would like to stay out of taking sides except in offering my concern and suggesting the solution. Yiba (talk | contribs) 08:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
My question was a genuine question and I am sorry if you feel it was 'cleverly worded' in any way (it was not). The problem was that I, and perhaps the previous user, could not be entirely sure how you were trying to suggest WP:CENSOR applies to this specific discussion. What I wrote above was my best guess at what you meant based on what I saw at WP:CENSOR, which is why I asked whether it is what you meant. I shall reply to your five points in turn. Before I do, though, in case this is not clear from my writing, I am very grateful for the time you have spent contributing to this discussion and you should assume I am engaging in a friendly discussion (it is difficult to give a smile over the internet).
1. This is my first ever request for comments and I have tried my utmost for it to go as well as possible. I left a note on the talk pages of all articles where discussion about the original pages had taken place. I left notices in various other places, as described at 'Publicizing an RfC' [sic] on WP:RFC and other users posted further notices. It did not cross my mind to visit every page that could be affected and to give notice to the projects given on each of the talk pages. If you feel as if this should be done, then please let me know and I shall do so. The general thirty day time period for discussion ends later today, though, and there has been a large discussion already, which might mean it is superfluous. Let me know what you think, though.
2. Thank you for explaining your application of WP:CENSOR. This is what I was unsure about. Very simply, I gave the three possible options because they seemed to cover all three possibilities. The point of the request for comments was to establish consensus by the community about which would be preferable. About this general issue of variant names, Wikipedia seems to employ various solutions. A user above mentioned the Gdańsk/Danzig situations. There, where both names are used commonly in English depending on the particular situation, the consensus is to use both names at first and then the more common one (option two here). For an issue more similar to ours, where one name is certainly more predominant in English, we could consider a case like Turin/Torino, where Turin is used throughout Wikipedia (option one here). I think the essence of this discussion is to determine whether Pau is common enough in English to warrant it being used as well as Pablo, and it is apparent that almost all users agree that Pau is sufficiently unusual for Pablo to warrant being used by itself. I, and the other users here, would not say it is censorship, in the same way one would not claim we are censoring Torino by using only Turin within articles (of course, we would still use Torino when discussing the issue of the variant names if it ever comes up in an article).
3. I do not think I need to reply to this.
4. I understand that we cannot determine the outcome simply by voting. This is why I have cited Wikipedia guidelines and presented the arguments in favour of the various options using proper evidence. Users who have responded have read through this and other evidence and come to their own conclusions about what it is most appropriate. A large majority of users preferring option one, however, is indicative of the strength of the arguments for this.
5. Thank you for offering your concern and suggesting a solution. Your solution was the same as the one I originally suggested, but User:In ictu oculi dismissed it because of his apparent preference for option three, where only Pau is used on Catalan-related articles. He stated that he would not accept any changes unless they were established through a request for comments. This is why I organised this request for comments, and I gave the three different options because I believed they represented the three different possibilities. (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
5. User:Yiba, yes that is correct I, and it appears some others above, oppose's rule that Pau Casal's Catalan name can never be used without the Castillian name. In my view "Pau Casals (known as Pablo Casals in Spanish)" is a departure from basic WP:MOS, and if we did that we'd have to do that to every Catalan name in a sentence or Paragraph. For example in Palau de la Música Catalana's change to Pau to Pablo has created this:

Lluís Millet hall - The Lluís Millet [CATALAN] hall is a salon located on the second floor of the Palau [CATALAN] that is named after one of the founders of the Orfeó Català [CATALAN]. ... It is ornated by several bronze busts of musicians related to the Palau: Lluís Millet [CATALAN] and Amadeu Vives [CATALAN] (Orfeó Català founders), Pablo Casals [CASTILLIAN], Eduard Toldrà [CATALAN] (founder and first conductor of the Orquestra Municipal de Barcelona, Just Cabot [CATALAN] (Orfeó Català president) and pianist Rosa Sabater [CATALAN].

The problem is that no evidence has been provided to justify that, if Casals is surrounded by other Catalan names, we must use his Catalan name (Pau) for some kind of consistency, even though it is not common in English. Only WP:ENGVAR has been cited, which, as numerous users have emphasised, is not relevant because it concerns varieties of English, not Castillian and Catalan. The two guidelines that determine this issue are at MOS:FOREIGN and WP:EN. These agree with each other: 'for foreign names, phrases, and words generally ... adopt the spelling most commonly used in other verifiable reliable sources' and 'if a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources'. It has been established above that Pablo is most common in English-language sources for these topics. The issue should be no more complicated than this. Note that there are no rules stating that Catalan names must be surrounded by other Catalan names, and there are no rules that if 5% of English-language sources use Pau then 5% of Wikipedia pages should use Pau, which appears to be what In ictu oculi is attempting to claim. (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • Update. The thirty day discussion period for this request for comments is over. I have updated the request at WP:ANRFC made by a previous user to reflect this. This discussion is now ready to be assessed and closed by an administrator. (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
    • A note to eventual closer - that given more than one contributor here has commented on imbalance in the framing of the RFC, - e.g. myself I believe there has been non-deliberate misrepresentation of English sources (which use the Catalan name more than the 10% of articles which Wikipedia was doing prior to removal from the remaining 30 of 300 articles) in the RFC, and given the apparent difference of this RfC with better discussed and established consensus/practice with Irish/English names, therefore some guidance should probably be given on whether a counter RFC to restore the use of Catalan spelling in the 10% of articles which are Catalan-culture related and have other Catalan names in them can happen, and if so, when. Usually with clear consensus RMs there is a 6 month wait. In this case the closer could ideally indicate whether the consensus is clear enough to apply a similar, shorter or longer time period. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a reply to In ictu oculi's 'note to eventual closer'. I have thought about the post in more detail now. It appears that, if he or she is not satisfied with the outcome of the request for comments (which is only speculation, since we do not know its result yet), then he or she intends to wait until it is possible to begin another request for comments to overturn this one. I do not believe this is appropriate. If there has been a 'non-deliberate misrepresentation of English sources', which appears to be In ictu oculi's concern, and both the participants of this request for comments and the closing administrator do not address this as In ictu oculi seems fit, then the close should be challenged as described at WP:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. This appears to be the standard course of action in such an event: it states there, for example, a possible reason for challenging a close is that 'significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion', which is what In ictu oculi is inferring. We do not need another request for comments in six months' time to repeat this discussion again. Please may the closer address the recommended course of action in such a situation? We must all remember, of course, this might turn out to be irrelevant depending on the close itself. (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
  • This is a personal note to In ictu oculi now that the discussion is ending rather than a note to the closer. Whilst we might disagree with each other about this matter, I hope it does not affect our enthusiasm for the Wikipedia project. Admittedly, there have been times when I have been frustrated by your approach, and you might have thought similarly about mine at times. I am not sure what you think personally about these matters, but I want you to be aware that I have absolutely no underlying desire to remove all Catalan names from Wikipedia. I am little more than someone who reads Wikipedia who chooses to make little copy edits when I notice something unusual, and my original edits arose simply because I thought it was strange not use the common English name for Casals. After you opposed the edits, I investigated Wikipedia guidelines and external sources and presented my case for why Pablo should be included based solely on guidelines rather than any kind of personal feeling other than a natural desire to want to help the reader. I would have been more than happy to include both Pablo and Pau, which might have been satisfactory to both of us, so it is a real shame that you opposed that, too. I am disappointed you claim that there is a 'non-deliberate misrepresentation' of English sources when I approached this entire matter with a neutral point of view and merely provided the evidence I found when researching the issue. You should have described your feelings of misrepresentation above. Moving on, however, I hope the close can be amicable and that, even if we do not agree with each other here, we can both continue to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
I'm sorry, but you're not listening. It has been explained three times already above why we do not have "both Pablo and Pau", for the same reason we don't have "Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh (known as Sean T. O'Kelly in English)" every time an Irish name is used on en.wp. Or indeed any other Catalan name.
This is a badly framed RfC, based on presenting misleading data, and is out of sync with how Wikipedia deals with Czech/German, Irish/English, Serb/Albanian etc. naming overlaps. A more balanced RfC in six months time will almost certainly reverse the result of this one. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I have just seen the edit you made above emphasising why you do not agree with that. In this case, it looks as if you would prefer option three, which means that a request for comments was inevitable. You have not justified why the evidence is misleading (and I can assure you I took the time to prepare it with good intentions). I approached this issue from a neutral point of view, which means there is no reason for me to be misleading. A piece of 'evidence' that is certainly misleading, however, is something you provided at Talk:El cant dels ocells, where you provided a Google Books search for ' "el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song ' to justify the use of Pau alone: of course Pau will come up if you specifically search for it! A very quick count gives that at least twenty-two users have participated in this discussion and, of these, the vast majority have given their opinion after reading all of the provided evidence from me, you and others without making any kind of complaint. (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
Going on further about misleading evidence, it is misleading that you have tried to justify the use of Pau alone here by claiming that, if Casals is surrounded by other Catalan names, then the Catalan Pau should be used, and that, if 5% of English-language sources use Pau, then 5% of Wikipedia articles should also use Pau, when neither of these notions is supported by Wikipedia guidelines. You misled by claiming that WP:ENGVAR (varieties of English) relates to the Spanish and Catalan languages. The most relevant guidelines, MOS:FOREIGN and WP:EN, have been given, but you have deceptively attempted to change their meanings to obtain the result you so desperately seek. (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
"but you have deceptively attempted to change their meanings to obtain the result you so desperately seek.
Really. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Amongst other things, you have accused my evidence as being misleading without any justification and ignored completely the problems with your erroneous claims I described above. It is my opinion that, if you had not been desperate, then you would have addressed the existing policies neutrally instead of making up your own. Perhaps I was wrong to respond in such a way. I wrote a personal note to you in the hope we could reach a good-natured end. I suggest we end this discussion here, because it is not going anywhere. Perhaps we could both read WP:STICK and leave this matter to be assessed by an administrator. (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.
WP:STICK does not apply to not withdrawing personal attacks against other editors. Please strike the personal comments in the above section. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I shall not remove my above comments. You have too accused me of unfavourable behaviour during this discussion. Immediately before my reply, you wrote that I 'presented misleading data' and was responsible for a 'non-deliberate misrepresentation of English sources'. This is equivalent to my use of 'deceptively' above. I accept, though, that I should not have allowed myself to be led into writing such a strongly worded reply.
I meant WP:STICK in a general sense: I tried to reach a friendly end with you, yet it now seems best that the best we can achieve is to accept our differences and leave the discussion to be assessed. There is little to be gained by continuing to discuss our approaches to this matter. (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as (talk), the original nominator, who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

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.