Talk:William of Moerbeke

message: This paragraph;
*In Umberto Eco's puzzle-mystery set in the 1320s, The Name of the Rose, there is some debate among the monks about Aristotle's Poetics (Second Day: Prime). Jorge of Burgos has condemned this book because knowledge of it came through the "infidel Moors" (as so much of Aristotle had indeed come). But the main character, William of Baskerville, knew that Aristotle's Poetics had recently been translated directly from Greek into Latin by William of Moerbeke.
is not a historical reference, but a movie. That paragraph needs to be placed under a section called "Movie reference" or something of that nature. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although The Name of the Rose referred to in the article is not the film, but the book that inspired it. Probably it would be better to quote some researches by Eco in the field of Medieval philology rather than quoting the novels he wrote out of his academic expertise. Unfortunately, I cannot access a copy of "the Name of the Rose" from here, so it is up to somebody else to change this occurrence. Instead of simply wiping it out, I think it would be better (as Kansas Bear suggests) to include it in some "Cultural references to William of Moerbeke" paragraph. Thanks for notifying this misplacement. --MarcelloPapirio (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-historical reference 

message: Concerning the external link to www.logicmuseum.com/authors/aristotle/metaphysics/meta-moerbeke.htm
I can see from the page history that there is an issue with aggressive/sock editing (and from my talk that there is a history of problems here). However, I believe the appropriate thing to do with this EL (given that I restored it based on its utility--it's an original-language text by William, otherwise lacking here, for the reader to see--not on its original provenance) is to let it stand. Yes, it shouldn't have come here via spam and editors who couldn't be bothered to learn the Wikipedia rules. But let's generously imagine how we'd feel about it if the editor had come to this talk page and said, "I have a really useful link; please consider it by your normal procedures and act on your consensus." If the answer is that it'd be in the article (which is my starting point until persuaded otherwise), then I want to retain the link in an appropriate form. Wareh (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, really. I see (from trying to repair the latest edit) that logicmuseum.com is blacklisted. In tune with my thoughts as expressed above, I kind of regret the situation where a website with pages that do belong linked from the encyclopedia ends up blacklisted (presumably) because it was promoted inappropriately. And I say that as someone who has vigorously fought spam and rolled back several spam campaigns here at Wikipedia. Oh well. My advice is for the logicmuseum creator/promoter to learn Wikipedia rules (WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.), adopt an extremely contrite attitude, make it clear that the spam will never recur & that links and references to Logic Museum will only be brought to talk pages, and then point out that an editor like me saw one of the pages as valuable and petition for a change in the blacklist. All that's based on a mere guess about the history of this situation, which I can't be bothered to research at the moment. Meanwhile nothing to do here though.Wareh (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a spam issue; the site's creator has been banned following an ArbCom decision and an extensive history of disruptive sockpuppetry to evade his ban. --Ckatzchatspy 09:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well, while I don't have it in me to do anything about it right now, I think my basic point still stands: sometimes an EL should still be judged on its own merits, despite having been originally added and promoted by a banned host of sockpuppets who have merited the ArbCom's wrath. Wareh (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The blacklist has been removed (discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#logicmuseum.com) and the link has been restored. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, John. It gives me hope when something I thought was a dead end gets fixed! Wareh (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep logicmuseum link on the merits? 

message: The friendship with Vitellius and his dedication to Morbeke of the Latin optical threaty "Perspectiva" is sourced by the Italian reknown Treccani encyclopedia, a 1972 academic paper and a manuscript sold by Christies. The latter may seem to be a commercial link, but it deals with a good sold in the past and nowadays 4th January 2020 it is the unique direct source available on the web related to the dedication of the work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.83 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendship with the italian translator Vitellius 

message: The infobox in this article has him from Moerbeke, East Flanders, as does the text of that article. But that article also distinguishes between that place and another Moerbeke in Geraardsbergen. The prose of this article, though, has him from that other Moerbeke (redlinked in both articles), so contradicts the infobox and the other article. Does anyone know which is right? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Moerbeke? 

message: The footnote "By the 13th century there was concern that the Arabic versions had distorted the original meaning of Aristotle, and that the possible influence of the rationalist Averroes could be a source of philosophical and theological errors" needs to be supported by references. 2603:7081:5D00:385C:A1E5:6B03:97CE:500C (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averroes