Talk:Geoffrey Keating

2005 edits
I think you should have attempted to discuss this before unilaterally moving this article. I created the article under Céitinn's real name deliberately. I don't believe it is accepted practice any more to translate people's names, and should be avoided unless the translation is too well established in public consciousness, e.g Biblical names. Céitinn may well be better known under the English translation of his name, but he is not really well known in any sense. If we are to bring him to people's attention it would be better to avoid this sort of cultural imperialism. --Nicknack009 16:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know who moved it, as I only discovered this article after the move. But if there had been such a discussion I certainly would have voted in favor of using his English name in an English-language encyclopedia. He's been known as Geoffrey Keating in English forever; it's not like somebody just recently made that name up, the way it would be if someone were to move Giuseppe Verdi to Joseph Green (which would clearly be absurd). Using Geoffrey Keating is no more cultural imperialism than using Munich instead of München (or Dublin instead of Baile Átha Cliath). --Angr/comhrá 05:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with "Geoffrey Keating" as the title, with the article beginning "Seathrún Céitinn, known in English as Geoffrey Keating". That's reasonable. "Geoffrey Keating (Irish name Seathrún Céitinn)" isn't. Compare Romans who are better known by English versions of their name: Vespasian or Mark Antony or Livy, for example. The form seems to be to use the English name as the page title, but give their real name first in the text. Stick to that. --Nicknack009 11:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It's on an exact par with other historical writers who have English versions of their names, such as Livy, Ovid and Sallust. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 17:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is the English-language wikipedia; can anyone name a single English-language source for the use of "Seathrún Céitinn" as his name during or about his lifetime? Given his family's "Old English" background, I'd be very surprised if there is one. Seathrún Céitinn has been used in print since his death. Cultural imperialism has nothing to do with it, accuracy is what we need here.86.42.204.26 (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Any English-language source during his lifetime would probably have said "Geoffrey Keating", because in those days translating people's names was common. Like it or not, that's cultural imperialism, and we don't do that any more - or we'd be obliged to refer to Liverpool's Spanish striker as Ferdinand Towers.


 * English ancestry or not, Keating spoke and wrote in Irish and would not have used that name himself, any more than Aodh Ó Néill would have called himself Hugh O'Neill, as he's known in English. The copy of the Foras Feasa in the 17th century MS A 14 in the UCD collection (Catalogue description at ISOS) includes the spelling "Séthrun Ceitinn", so there's a contemporary or near-contemporary witness. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia
Could someone adapt the above entry to this article?--13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for not printing FFaE
The book was not printed because it was in Irish; the English administration itself printed lots in Irish including the first Irish bible. The reason was its pro-Catholic arguments, naturally enough from a priest.86.42.206.248 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)