Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pythagoras/archive1

Pythagoras

 * Nominator(s): Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me tell you about a man who lived roughly 2,500 years ago. Some say he had a magic golden thigh and that, when he was bitten by a deadly snake, he bit it back and it died. Others say that he was the son of the god Apollo and that a river once greeted him by name. The man of whom I speak is, of course, none other than Pythagoras of Samos, a mystic sage and spiritual guru who founded the school of Pythagoreanism in Kroton in Magna Graecia in the late sixth century BC and who many ancient writers claim was the first person to call himself a "philosopher." Though the historical Pythagoras is a shadowy figure, whose life is largely shrouded in mystery and obfuscation, his ideas and those of the people he influenced—including, most famously, the Athenian philosopher Plato—continue to shape our way of thinking even today.

I have put considerable amount of effort into this article and it is one of my favorite articles that I have worked on during my time here so far at Wikipedia. I rewrote it back in fall of last year and it became a "Good Article" on 2 February of this year. I have revised it significantly since then and it recently underwent a peer review in preparation for this nomination. I have already written twenty-one "Good Articles" and counting, including this one, but this will be my first "Featured Article" nomination. I have, however, already successfully nominated the article List of Mesopotamian deities for "Featured List" status and I imagine the procedures are probably very similar. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Comment Are you listing references in numerical order or some other system? They often seem out of order. I'm planning to review but am somewhat busy at the moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This came up during the peer review. I have tried to list references in the order of how directly relevant they are to the statement being cited. Some sources talk about specific issues extensively, while other source address those same issues, but devote less attention to them. The source that talks about the subject the most and has the most information on it I have tried to list first and then the remaining citations are in order of decreasing relevance. In a few cases, all or most of the sources are equally relevant, in which case I have tried to list them in numerical order. If there is an official policy that explicitly states that references must always be given in numerical order, then I would be willing to rearrange them, but I am not aware of the existence of any such policy and I think it is much better and more helpful to the reader to arrange the sources based on relevance to the particular statement in question, rather than the mostly arbitrary order in which they happen to first occur in article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It sounds fine, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you do not mention the theorem in the first paragraph? That is probably what most people know him for (whether or not it was his), and if they do not see it, they may assume that this is another Greek of the same name. I'm thinking about how Google summarizes our articles, just a few sentences at most.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the Pythagoras section. Although Pythagoras is probably best known by non-scholars today for his alleged discovery of the Pythagorean theorem, he did not actually discover it; it was known by the ancient Babylonians in the 1800s BC, over a millennium before Pythagoras was born. The legend claiming that Pythagoras discovered it is not mentioned by any source until nearly 500 years after his death. In fact, we do not even know whether the historical Pythagoras was involved in mathematics at all. All we know in that regard is that, by the time of Aristotle, many Pythagoreans had come to believe that the universe is entirely composed of numbers. Whether they derived that teaching from Pythagoras or not, we do not really know for certain.
 * Also, the Pythagorean theorem is just one of nearly a half dozen major scientific and mathematical discoveries that have come to be attributed to Pythagoras. Other major discoveries attributed to him include the sphericity of the earth and the idea of mathematical proportionality. In all likelihood, he never really discovered any of these things. Our earliest sources all portray Pythagoras a sort of mystic guru and spiritual teacher, not as what we today would consider a "scientist" or "mathematician." If any of Pythagoras's alleged or actual teachings deserves to go in the first paragraph, it would be metempsychosis, since that is probably the only teaching that we say beyond any shadow of a doubt that Pythagoras really taught. It was also probably his most influential idea in antiquity; although Pherecydes of Syros had apparently taught it before him, Pythagoras seems to have popularized it and the idea of metempsychosis generally permeates most of the later dialogues of Plato. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * " He probably prohibited his followers from eating beans, but he may or may not have advocated a strictly vegetarian diet." this seems unrelated to the rest of the paragraph and you might do better deleting it or moving it elsewhere in the lede where you discuss the lifestyle he advocated.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The part about the Pythagorean diet definitely needs to go in the lead, because it has been a large part of Pythagoras's legacy, mainly thanks to Ovid's portrayal of Pythagoras as a vegetarian in his Metamorphoses. It is unlikely that Pythagoras advocated full-on vegetarianism, but it is probable that he did forbid the consumption of certain kinds of meat. As bizarre as it sounds, the prohibition against beans is actually one of the most widely agreed on upon facts of his life in ancient sources, although even that has been contradicted by a few ancient writers. I have rearranged the lead, per your request, to put the part about the Pythagorean diet in the first paragraph in the part where it talks about the lifestyle he advocated. You may want to read over the first two paragraphs again and see if they flow better now or if you think the new arrangement is problematic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wugapodes

 * Comment I hope to review this soon, but my first impression is that there are a large number of images, many of which seem to add very little to the reading experience. I use a fairly large screen and am getting sometimes 3 images per screen page, with the text occasionally sandwiched between two images. I strongly suggest the number of images be reduced. That said only one image ("Cropped image of Pythagoras from Raphael's School of Athens.jpg") lacks alt text, so images generally comply with that policy. I'm also confused why biographical sources is its own section, and why it is first. I think it may be better if the information were distributed throughout the "Life" section rather than on its own, but may well be wrong in that. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The image you refer ("Cropped image of Pythagoras from Raphael's School of Athens.jpg") to does, in fact, have an alt caption (a very descriptive one, actually), but it appears that it was broken for some reason. I have now fixed it, so the alt text should show up fine. Regarding the number of images, none of them even come close to being sandwiched on my screen and, as I am scrolling through the article, I generally only have one image on my screen at any given time. I suspect this is more a problem of your screen being unusually large than the article having too many images. I think that all the images do add something to the article, but, if you absolutely insist that I must remove some of them, there are a few I would be willing, albeit reluctant, to remove.
 * The reason why the first section deals with biographical sources is because Pythagoras is an extraordinarily difficult individual to write a biography about and all of our sources on his life are problematic in a number of ways. It is therefore highly necessary to explain the sources that are available and the problems with them before the article can delve into the accounts of his life. In fact, at least two of the main sources used in this article, the books Pythagoras: His Life, Teaching and Influence by Christoph Riedweg (published in 2005 by Cornell University Press) and Measuring Heaven: Pythagoras and His Influence on Thought and Art in Antiquity and the Middle Ages by Christiane Joost-Gaugier (published in 2006, also by Cornell University Press) both devote roughly a whole chapter to an overview of the historical sources available for reconstructing Pythagoras's biography before attempting to reconstruct that biography. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe my screen is "unusually large", at 1920 x 1366, it's in fact one of the most common (smaller, in fact, than the 2560x1600 standard on 13 inch MacBook Pros). It represents an estimated 20% of web users. That aside, I strongly disagree that all the images add something to the article:
 * The images look fine on my computer. Perhaps my computer screen is unusually small. I am not much of a techie person, so I probably would not know. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two images that depict a proof of the pythagorean theorem which the article (and you) make clear he may not have even developed; those interested in that information can go to the article pythagorean theorem.
 * Just because people can click on a link to another article does not mean we should not attempt to explain things in this article. Although Pythagoras probably did not really discover the Pythagorean theorem, it is still what most people immediately associate him with. I would be willing to remove the second image of the proof for the theorem if you really insist, but I still maintain that the first image, at least, should remain, since there is a possibility that someone reading this article may not understand the Pythagorean theorem and the diagram illustrates it quite nicely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because people can click on a link to another article does not mean we should not attempt to explain things in this article. But this is the point of WP:SUMMARY, this is an article on Pythagoras, who likely didn't even discover this theorem, and further, the article doesn't explain the pythagorean theorem at all. The only content related to the theorem proper is its statement as A^2 + b^2 = c^2, with the rest of the two paragraphs discussing how he probably didn't invent it. The only reason I can make sense of the diagrams is because I already know the proof, they re useless to someone who doesn't because they are not put into context and probably shouldn't be given WP:SUMMARY. If people are coming to this article for information on the theorem they are going to the wrong article. The proper way to direct them to the appropriate article is with main or about. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The image caption "Gaffurio Pythagoras.png" mentions pythagorean tuning but this is explained nowhere in the article, there is a main link to the article, but readers would need to go to that page to understand the image at all; even if greater context were added (though it should be) I doubt the usefulness of a visual image for demonstrating auditory phenomena like musical tuning.
 * Pythagorean tuning is described in the article; that is what the entire "In music" section is about. The image here is illustrating the legend about how Pythagoras is said to have discovered Pythagorean tuning after passing a blacksmith's shop where they were pounding with different-sized hammers, a legend which is described in the section. This particular woodcut is also used and discussed in one of the sources as part of Pythagoras's legacy. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not described in the article. It is mentioned, but it is not described. The closest it gets to describing pythagorean tuning is "He then realized that the tune played when the hammer struck was directly proportional to the size of the hammer and therefore concluded that music was mathematical." What are the steps or freuency ratios used in pythagorean tuning? How does it relate to typical tunings of bells or other instruments? What does the tuning sound like? None of this is conveyed in the section. That it is an illustration of the legend is not described in the picture caption at all: "Late medieval woodcut from Franchino Gafurio's Theoria musice (1492), showing Pythagoras with bells and other instruments in Pythagorean tuning." And I maintain that this image is not useful for informing readers about an auditory phenomenon. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The usefulness of the Timaeus manuscript pages image is in the caption and text, as I don't see what readers are supposed to get out of an image of an old book they can't read (at any size given that it is in Latin). If they are truly interested they can find the image on the associated article in a more useful context.
 * The image contains geometric diagrams, which illustrate the Pythagorean influences, since the Pythagoreans, at least in Plato's time, believed in mystical geometry and that is part of how they influenced Plato. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The image "Archytas of Tarentum MAN Napoli Inv5607.jpg" is possibly not of Pythagoras (which is not necessarily a bad thing), the suspicion based upon the dress of the bust which doesn't seem to be explained in the caption or text, and regardless represents the third image of a bust in a row, immediately next to another bust (though I would prefer it, with more context, over the Vatican Museum bust given the rather distracting background of that one).
 * All three of the busts pictured in the article are discussed in the sources, which discuss Pythagoras's iconography and these busts in particular. If we were to omit them, we would be leaving out a vital aspect of how Pythagoras was later portrayed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * They are discussed in the sources, but not in the article. If they show vital aspects of how Pythagoras was later portrayed, why is there no discussion in the article about them? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The image "Decorated pillars of the temple at Karnac, Thebes, Egypt. Co Wellcome V0049316.jpg" is unclear as to its relation to Pythagoras at all, the article says he studied in Thebes, and the caption says the Great Hypostyle Hall was "at that site" but is "that site" Thebes or a place Pythagoras studied? Either way, what does an image of these columns depict about Pythagoras or his studies?
 * It means "at Thebes." I do not believe Antiphon ever clearly identifies the exact site where Pythagoras is said to have studied and there is doubt about the accuracy of Antiphon's report. The idea in having the image was to give the reader an impression of what some of the ruins at Thebes look like. If Pythagoras really did study in Thebes, then those ruins would have been there when he was there, having been built hundreds of years before. I would be willing to remove this image if you would really like me to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend those as the starting place for reduction in the number of images.
 * As for the biographical sources section, I think it is worth keeping on its own, but would be better placed as the last subsection of "Life". While I understand that a number of secondary sources lead off with a discussion of biographical sources, Wikipedia is not a secondary source, and the veracity of the primary sources on his life should be of minimal concern because we should (and do) use secondary sources which have already evaluated what is an is not likely to be true. In fact, none of the cited sources are to those primary source authors, and so it doesn't even serve as a disclaimer about the sourcing of the article itself. Further, for readers looking for information on Pythagoras, having the first section be four paragraphs about people who are not Pythagoras is strange. Given that its usefulness is more esoteric, I don't think its current placement is justified. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Placing it at the end of the "Life" section would eliminate much of the point in having it because one of the main reasons why I have the section and why it is placed at the beginning of the body is to explain what the sources are for Pythagoras's life so that, when the article refers to them in the "Life" section, the readers will know which ones it is talking about and hopefully have some impression of the problems those sources present. The earliest sources are obviously the ones that are most important. I am also going to have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the reliability of the primary sources concerned here as a "esoteric" issue that should be of "minimal concern"; the accuracy of the primary sources is not an esoteric concern, but a pressing problem that must be addressed before we can really begin to talk about Pythagoras at all.
 * Writing about Pythagoras is not the same as writing about say, George Washington, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or any other recent historical figure whose life details are well-known and uncontroversial. As the "Life" and "Legends" sections already indicate, primary sources disagree widely on many aspects of Pythagoras's life, with many of them giving completely different and contradictory accounts. There are only a handful of facts that are generally agreed upon. Yes, we do rely on secondary sources, but secondary sources rely on primary sources and those are the original sources of information, which makes it highly significant to explain what they are. I like to think that our articles should give readers a thorough understanding of the subject and introduce them to the primary sources so, if they wish to find more information from primary sources, they will know where to look and will have an impression of how accurate those sources are, when they were written, and by whom. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed many (but not all) of the images you have suggested removing with this edit. I hope this solves the problem. I also moved the images of the two busts later in the article to fill in a large gap left by the removal of several images in the same vicinity. That also moves them away from the main image and hopefully resolves your complaint about having the first three images in the article all be busts. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have replied inline to those comments you have made above, but I want to summarize them partly here as well as some concerns that your responses have raised as well. In my mind, the number and placement of images has become more of a minor concern. That issues stems from MOS:IMAGES: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." In many cases, the images do not appear to be significant in context because that context is not made clear in the article. For example, the first three images (still) in the article are busts of Pythagoras, and the reason expressed for keeping them is that we would be leaving out a vital aspect of how Pythagoras was later portrayed. Yet despite them being specifically described in the sources, their articulated importance is not discussed anywhere in the article. One would have to already be familiar with the sources to understand the images as important, not decorative. Similarly, the pythagorean tuning image is apparently mentioned in the sources yet the significance of that image is not explained at all in the text of the article, the issue of a still image being used to convey an auditory phenomenon on top of that. In at least two cases, secondary sources articulated the importance of a given image included here yet no mention of that significance is made in the text. And this poses accesibility issues as well; not everyone can see these images and relying on them to make a point that should be described in the text is a significant problem for readers with impaired vision or slow/limited internet connections. Given that I am concerned that the article does not meet criteria 1b and 1c, as what seems to be important contextual information in secondary sources has not been included. I am not well versed enough in the literature to say whether it does or doesn't meet those criteria, but that the reason for including two images is coverage in secondary sources despite this article not covering that discussion is deeply concerning.
 * My second major concern is with criterion 4 and the use of summary style. The first example is the "Biographical sources" section that begins the article. Criterion 4 states that the article must "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" yet the first four paragraphs of the body of the article are devoted to people who are not the subject. Despite your objection I maintain that this information is esoteric and should not be the first section of the article: this is not the most important information on the subject. While you are correct that secondary sources may start with this information wikipedia is not a secondary source and we follow summary style where the most important information goes first and only after is followed by detailed background information like scholarly debates as to the veracity of certain sources. If, for example, the section entitled "alleged travels" is unable to convey the conflict of sources as to where he allegedly traveled to without a 4 paragraph description of all the primary sources then I would be concerned that the section does not satisfy WP:DUE. The article on Plato doesn't begin with a discussion of the veracity of biographical sources, nor does Diogenes of Sinope, nor does Hipparchia of Maroneia or Epicurus both of whom are known almost entirely from secondary sources.
 * Issues of summary style also extend to sections describing and linking to concepts in other articles. The article on pythagorean tuning is not adequately summarized in this article at all, while it has coverage of the legend of how it was discovered, it makes no actual mention of what the tuning even is or what the mathematical relationship mentioned is. Similarly for the pythagorean theorem; supposedly people coming to this article are interested in that topic, yet it is burried 18(!) sections down with the heading "[Attributed discoveries] In mathematics". If this is so prominent, why is it not prominent in the sectioning? If the "Attributed discoveries" don't describe the discoveries proper but only the legends surrounding the discovery (as seems to be the case), why are they not a subsection of "Legends"?
 * These are my concerns so far, though I still hope to do a more thorough review. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

More on images

 * commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama and commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama will have an impact on inclusion of 3D works like sculptures - these will need to indicate the status of the original work


 * File:The_story_of_the_greatest_nations;_a_comprehensive_history,_extending_from_the_earliest_times_to_the_present,_founded_on_the_most_modern_authorities,_and_including_chronological_summaries_and_(14783288925).jpg should include a more specific copyright tag


 * File:Bronnikov_gimnpifagoreizev.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added PD tags to the images "File:The_story_of_the_greatest_nations;_a_comprehensive_history,_extending_from_the_earliest_times_to_the_present,_founded_on_the_most_modern_authorities,_and_including_chronological_summaries_and_(14783288925).jpg" and "File:Bronnikov_gimnpifagoreizev.jpg," both of which are two-dimensional works of art that were originally published over a century ago and are definitely in the public domain. The busts shown in "File:Kapitolinischer Pythagoras adjusted.jpg" and "File:Pythagoras Bust Vatican Museum (cropped).jpg" are of uncertain date, but they are certainly no later than about the third century AD. They are probably much earlier than that, but the third century is the most recent possible date. The one shown in "File:Archytas of Tarentum MAN Napoli Inv5607.jpg" definitely is no later than 79 AD because it was discovered in the House of the Papyri in Herculaneum. It was probably originally cast long before that, but the eruption of Vesuvius ensures a most recent possible date of the 70s AD. All three of these busts are well over 1,700 years old. We do not know who originally created them, but, unless they were all carved by some kind of immortal or time-traveling trickster, I am guessing their authors are long, long dead. Is there a tag that can be added to show that an original three-dimensional work of art is in the public domain? --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You could use a life+70 or a pre-1923 tag, but I am not sure whether these items would be covered under Italy's cultural heritage provisions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to talking about Freedom of Panorama in Italy says this: "Copyright protection expires 70 years after the death of the original author (who is defined as the creator or designer) here. On January 1st of the following year (ie. January 1 of the 71st Year), freely licensed images of the author's 3D works such as sculptures, buildings, bridges or monuments are now free and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The lack of Freedom of Panorama is no longer relevant here for states with no formal FOP since the author's works are now copyright free." --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added tags to the images of the sculptures to show that the original sculptures are in the public domain. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination
I have decided to withdraw my nomination of this article for FAC. Clearly this article is nowhere close to being of "Featured Article" quality and, frankly, since "Featured Article" status seems to mean taking out all the information about the sources and removing all or nearly all the images, I do not think I actually want to bring this article to FA status after all. I would rather just leave it the way it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I heartily sympathize. Good luck with the article and your work here, and if I can advise or help in any way, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry to see this. I looked at the article both now and before you removed some images & the number seemed fine to me in the earlier version. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this article is "nowhere close to being" FA quality. In my attempts to make my point clear, I was harsh and my point got burried by my jerk-iness for which I am sorry. I do hope you continue, though I understand if I've soured the process for you. I think that getting it there does not require "taking out all the information about the sources and removing all or nearly all the images", and I hope to make my suggestions clear in a more constructive way. I don't think you should remove the biographical sources discussion, you convinced me of the importance of them in your first comment. Rather, I think it would be better placed as a subsection of "Life" for the reasons (rudely) given. I don't think you should remove all the images, I think a number of them are very good, and I should have been more forth coming with that. For the ones you chose not to remove, I should have been more clear that my concern is not that they are there, but that you clearly know so much about them from the sources, and that the context you are aware of isn't apparent from the article. That this was a note for expansion, not necessarily removal. You have put a lot of work into this article, and it shows. I don't think it's so far off that it can't pass. If I haven't ruined it for you, I do hope you reconsider withdrawing. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no. It was not your fault. You actually were not very rude at all and I apologize if I have made you feel bad about yourself. The problem here is me. I should have known people would expect me to make lots of changes, but, after spending so much time on an article, I always get attached to the way things are and do not want to make major changes. That is not a healthy thing to do in general, especially here on Wikipedia, since we do not own articles, but I tend to do it anyway, even though I consciously try to avoid it. Really, I probably ought to stop writing on Wikipedia and start working on my own writings again. I used to write a lot on my own and I am actually still sort of working on a book, but I spend far more time writing on Wikipedia nowadays than I do on that. I will consider withdrawing my withdrawal of this nomination. I may want a day or two to think about it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to have ended with no hard feelings; I hope Katolophyromai is not too disheartened and will continue with the nom. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Ceoil
Reading through and first impressions are good. I know Katolophyromai from other articles (including Evil and Satan), and will vouch for his serious-mindedness. I see two red flags, but they are probably unintentional: vegetarianism *was* linked twice in the lead, and I think the Transcendentalism paragraph towards the end is stretching it. Nor do I like the "see also section" - if none of these are worth blue links above, then why do we need them. Its *really* great to see this here, and would love to see the page scrutinised, even if thats hard for Katolophyromai in the short term, it will pay back man. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done with this, frustratingly so. Would urge other reviewers to watch for new age tenancies, and language such as "career" and "famous" in ancient contexts. On that basis I think a heavy duty source review may be needed. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I drove you off. That was not what I was trying to do. I kept most of the changes you made, but there were a lot of places where you changed the meaning of what the article was saying so that it no longer aligned with the sources or so that important information was omitted. For instance, there were several times you changed the word "Pythagorean" to say "his" in reference to Pythagoras, but the word "Pythagorean" refers to things associated either with Pythagoras himself or with his later followers. With many of these teachings, we cannot necessarily attribute them to Pythagoras himself, because we only know that these were things his later followers believed.
 * As for the word "famous," fame was a concept with which the ancient Greeks were intimately familiar. Their word for "fame" or "renown" was κλέος, which refers to a person's reputation and how that person is known and remembered. The Greeks placed a strong emphasis on this idea, as evidenced, for instance, by the fact that names ending in a suffix derived from this word (e.g. Περικλῆς, Σοφοκλῆς, etc.) were nearly ubiquitous in the fifth century BC. It seems to me that the problem with this word is not its actual meaning or definition, but rather that you personally associate it with modern celebrity culture, something which word does not actually denote. Nonetheless, I have not reverted your edit removing this word because I do not have any problem with the new wording and I would prefer to avoid starting an argument for no good reason.
 * I am also confused by what you say about "New Age tendencies"; I am largely unfamiliar with what "New Age" movements believe and, in this article, I am just trying to report what scholarly sources have written about Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism. Perhaps the problem here is that Pythagoreanism has influenced modern New Age teachings so much that you are mistaking Pythagorean ideas for New Age ones? As for the paragraph about Pythagorean influence on eighteenth-century Transcendendalism, I am curious why you thought that needed to be removed. I have not restored it because I was not particularly attached to it and I really did not want to start another argument, but I fail to see what the problem with it was. As far as I can tell, the paragraph was well-sourced and relevant.
 * As I have said above, I think I would rather just end this review, because it has been nothing but a pain for me and I have decided that I do not think it is worthwhile to continue. Honestly, I really ought to stop writing for Wikipedia altogether, but I have gotten into such a bad habit of writing articles here that I cannot stop. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I find the above extremely tortured, self pitying, and frankly tiresome; its not for me to say if you should retire or not. If you are unwilling to be scrutinised, then maybe FAC the process and your manner are not suited. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

- courtesy ping to the FAC co-ords: the nom has requested withdrawal of this - (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&diff=860879599&oldid=860775830 w/d comment here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * SchroCat, I think it can be worked out by the delegates. But thanks! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)