Your point 2 is ridiculous What you are saying is that rather than best known you mean only known Obviously you would not write only known for his theories You can recognise that that would be stupid right And by the logic of your argument here you d be writing The Beatles best known for being a band Again you can recognise that that would be stupid I assume You almost get the point with your 1 though When we write articles implicit in the inclusion of facts is that these facts are worth knowing We do not need to say note this fact or this is what the article is about or this is the reason you ve heard of X if you ve actually heard of them It adds nothing It s pointless Finally opinions are opinions whether they appear in sources or not and you are not allowed to report them as if they are facts