Talk:Pythagoras

message: Evidence has revealed Pythagoras's Journal in Rome with a body holding it. 204.8.62.75 (talk)
: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HouseBlastertalk 22:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...I can't even find any UNRELIABLE sources for this "journal in Rome", even among the usual suspects for propagating this kind of junk.--ElectroNautical (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023 

message: Sorry folks, I KNOW I am supposed to add new topics at the bottom, but (a) there are very serious problems starting in the lead, (b) this article is too important to leave these kind of errors unaddressed and (c) I simply don't have time to prioritize improving the article before requesting reassessment.
I'm hoping to solicit help from previous editors or those with interest and experience making this article more encyclopedic. 
Among the biggest problems I see in the lead, one un-sourced assertion that stands out is... 
"..many of the accomplishments credited to him likely originated earlier or were made by his colleagues or successors. Some accounts mention that the philosophy associated with Pythagoras was related to mathematics and that numbers were important, but it is debated to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy."
This kind of 'bold statement' (opinionated summary of various opinions) in the lead needs extraordinary proof referenced immediately following with specific examples.  Seemingly everyone agrees (including the experts themselves) that almost everything about his life is mere speculation based on apocryphal legends.
The lead should me MUCH shorter, focus on 'little is actually known' and make sure that controversial references to unproven and unprovable stuff like 'aspects of vegetarianism' ?!?!? are moved elsewhere.  Writing style and dialectics are also big problems.  Vegetarianism is by definition a binary thing -- either you eat ONLY from the plant kingdom or you don't. We are leading readers to the conclusion that not only was Pythagoras preaching about the ethics of eating animal protein, he was also a hypocrite in choosing the 'aspects' of vegetarianism he liked.
I'm going to take a stab at some more-than-minor edits I HOPE will be non-controversial, but well aware that multiple editors here must have shared the PoV's that led to acceptance of the lead as it is.
As I find it, this article gives WP:UNDUE weight to speculations about the silliest and most controversial of these apocryphal tales and could be summed up with a "He was a whack-job", which segues nicely to...'smoke trapping' ElectroNautical (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well...I just realized the article is protected.  I hope someone can help.  If it cannot be unprotected, what are the options? I don't want to resort to requesting reassessment, but the recommendation to "prioritize improving" is not available to me.  Thoughts?  ElectroNautical (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: "needs extraordinary proof referenced immediately" – This is an entirely uncontroversial claim, widely accepted among scholars, with nothing particularly "bold" about it. Discussion of this point is well sourced in the relevant section of the article, and doesn't need a footnote parade redundantly pasted into the lead section. –jacobolus (t) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: What jacobolus said. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fast Tracking a Good Article reassessment?