Talk:Pythagoras/Archive 3

Pythagorean theorum use prior to his time

Under the heading "Pythagorean Theorum" it says;

"While the theorem that now bears his name was known and previously utilized by the Babylonians and Indians..."

His theorum was also used in North America. Members of the Smithsonian, Squier and Davis, in 1848 surveyed constructions of the previous inhabitants of Ohio, known as the Hopewell civilasation (carbon-dating shows they were building and present in the eastern half of the USA as early as 5 500 BC). Some structures are perfect circles and squares. The surveyed constructions mentioned here are in Ohio but they were built after Pythagorus' time. But! That same civilization built using the same advanced maths up to 5 000 years earlier. Sorry to not give specific information on the 5 000 BC use of pythagorean theorem in northern america. I'm too tired to dig further at the moment.

Jim Viera has published on this and has been involved in a TED talk about the subject. He's well respected in this area.

Could someone verify the above and add on this page that it was "previously utilized by the Babylonians, Indians and ancient Americans"? Or something like that?

Edit request

Under Pythagorean School it lists Iamblichus as living from ca. 250-350 BC. But following the link shows he lived ca. 245-325 AD, which puts his birthdate 495 years off. And why is this page even protected? 24.30.104.156 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --Chewings72 (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It's claimed here that Pythagoras taught the heliocentric model, which is inaccurate. It was one of his later followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.200.90 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pythagoras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110408225053/http://www.regolish.com:80/Plays.htm to http://www.regolish.com/Plays.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2016

Pythagoras was born on 570BC and died on 495BC, it means he was dead 75 years before he was born :) I mean his birth and death dates are written in reverse order. just wanted to correct them, just a typo error.

Rizwan019 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The years are correct, BC is counted down then AD is counted up. See Anno Domini Mlpearc (open channel) 00:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Pythagoras theorem

Section 5.1: the word area should be changed to length. Random690 (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Deor (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits claiming Pythagoras studied under Brahmins

Hello,

I've noticed some misinformation by an editor who also made edits on the Calculus page of a similar vein (that is, discrediting contributors and talking-up Indian influence).

It is widely accepted, and I believe it has been discussed on this talk page before, that the sources who claim Pythagoras learned from Brahmins is unreliable.

This is partially due to the fact that some have extrapolated this purported fact. Here are some exerpts from a [www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2009/11/17/pythagoras-in-india/#comment-737953 scholarly discussion about this topic]:" Here is one useful exchange:

Roger Pearse says: July 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm

I’ve had a number of comments on this post consisting of something like “here is a statement that Pythagoras visited India” referencing some book with no references by a non-specialist.

Comments are very welcome; but examples of hearsay are not helpful. Please do not post any more.

We all know that there is any amount of hearsay that Pythagoras visited India. But what we want to see is *ancient* sources. kuma0177 says: March 3, 2013 at 4:44 am

I feel it is very hard to find evidence for this, however I found a ton of sites where they claim he traveled to India. One will have to refer to these articles and their references.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25189562?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101895297187

http://www.theosophical.ca/books/ApolloniusOfTyana_GRSMead.pdf

Search the entire article for India.

http://9waysmysteryschool.tripod.com/sacredsoundtools/id13.html

where the moderator of the discussion then states:

Roger Pearse says: March 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm

The Mead book is worthless. The articles that make the claim are worthless. The very elderly JSTOR article is not very useful, except that it tells us that a certain Schroeder wrote a book “Pythagoras und der Inder” in 1884, which is online here, and that Alexander Polyhistor refers (no reference given) to discussions with Brahmins (not, of course, necessarily in India).

In Susantha Goonatilake, “Toward a Global Science: Mining Civilizational Knowledge”, p.30 I find mention (but not references) to Alexander Polyhistor, Apuleius, and Philostratus, saying that “Pythagoras learned many things from the Brahmins”.

On p.24-25 of Schroeder I find references to ancient sources mentioning Brahmins and Pythagoras: Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, 304 B (supposedly quoting Alexander Polyhistor); Eusebius, PE X, 4, 10; Apuleius, Florida II, 15; Philostratus V, Apoll. VIII, 7, 44. These deserve looking up (but not tonight).

which, after providing similar passages to the nationalist editor, he questions just how much reliable the sources (like Eusebius) are: (Note: It seems that the editor User:Prototypehumanoid ripped the work of this author without following the conclusion. An even more serious offense than simple misinformation)

Roger Pearse says: March 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata book 1 (here):

“Zoroaster the Magus, Pythagoras showed to be a Persian. Of the secret books of this man, those who follow the heresy of Prodicus boast to be in possession. Alexander, in his book ‘On the Pythagorean Symbols’, relates that Pythagoras was a pupil of Nazaratus the Assyrian (some think that he is Ezekiel; but he is not, as will afterwards be shown), and will have it that, in addition to these, Pythagoras was a hearer of the Galatae and the Brahmins. Clearchus the Peripatetic says that he knew a Jew who associated with Aristotle…. Thus philosophy, a thing of the highest utility, flourished in antiquity among the barbarians, shedding its light over the nations. And afterwards it came to Greece. First in its ranks were the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Samanaeans among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour’s birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanae, and others Brahmins. And those of the Sarmanae who are called Hylobii neither inhabit cities, nor have roofs over them, but are clothed in the bark of trees, feed on nuts, and drink water in their hands. Like those called Encratites in the present day, they know not marriage nor begetting of children. Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha; whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honours. … Very clearly the author Megasthenes, the contemporary of Seleucus Nicanor, writes as follows in the third of his books, ‘On Indian Affairs’: ‘All that was said about nature by the ancients is said also by those who philosophise beyond Greece: some things by the Brahmins among the Indians, and others by those called Jews in Syria.'”

Eusebius, PE X, chapter 4 (here):

“In fact the said Pythagoras, while busily studying the wisdom of each nation, visited Babylon, and Egypt, and all Persia, being instructed by the Magi and the priests: and in addition to these he is related to have studied under the Brahmans (these are Indian philosophers); and from some he gathered astrology, from others geometry, and arithmetic and music from others, and different things from different nations, and only from the wise men of Greece did he get nothing, wedded as they were to a poverty and dearth of wisdom: so on the contrary he himself became the author of instruction to the Greeks in the learning which he had procured from abroad.”

Apuleius, Florida (here):

“There are some who assert that184 Pythagoras was about this time carried to Egypt among the captives of King Cambyses, and studied under the magi of Persia, more especially under Zoroaster the priest of all holy mysteries; later they assert he was ransomed by a certain Gillus, King of Croton. However, the more generally accepted tradition asserts that it was of his own choice he went to study the wisdom of the Egyptians. There he was initiated by their priests into the mighty secrets of their ceremonies, passing all belief; there he learned numbers in all their marvellous combinations, and the ingenious laws of geometry. Not content with these sciences, he next approached the Chaldaeans and the Brahmins, a race of wise men who live in India. Among these Brahmins he sought out the gymnosophists. The Chaldaeans taught him the lore of the stars, the fixed orbits of the wandering lords of heaven, and the influence of each on the births of men. Also they instructed him in the art of healing, and revealed to him remedies in the search for which men have lavished their wealth and wandered far by land and sea. But it was from the Brahmins that he derived the greater part of his philosophy, the arts of teaching the mind and exercising the body, the doctrines as to the parts of the soul and its various transmigrations, the knowledge of the torments and rewards ordained for each man, according to his deserts, in the world of the gods below.”

Philostratus, “Life of Apollonius of Tyana” (here):

“This I think: I never sacrificed blood, I do not sacrifice it now, I never touch it, not even if it be shed upon an altar; for this was the rule of Pythagoras and likewise of his disciples, and in Egypt also of the Naked sages, and of the sages of India, from whom these principles of wisdom were derived by Pythagoras and his school.”

None of these, note, state that Pythagoras went to India; only that he studied under Indian teachers. This, of course, could have taken place in Persia. But … how much faith do we place in these references?

While the topic of Pythagoras travelling to India certainly does not preclude the possibility (key here is POSSIBILITY), the belief of his travel to India and the purported Brahmin influence (what haven't they claimed to influence, honestly?) seem intertwined. Indeed another participant chimes in and quite rightly states:

Neunder says: October 8, 2015 at 10:56 pm

We should be sceptical. Apuleius is writing almost 700 years later than Pythagoras. Further: ” There are a number of reports that he traveled widely in the Near East while living on Samos, e.g., to Babylonia, Phoenicia and Egypt. To some extent reports of these trips are an attempt to claim the ancient wisdom of the east for Pythagoras and some scholars totally reject them (Zhmud 2012, 83-91), but relatively early sources such as Herodotus (II. 81) and Isocrates (Busiris 28) associate Pythagoras with Egypt, so that a trip there seems quite plausible.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/#LifWor

And in follow-up, this poster makes a succinct analogy

Neunder says: October 11, 2015 at 1:39 am

Suppose an author writing in 700AD claims that Jesus traveled to India or learned from the Brahmins. Suppose also that we have no document before 700AD that says this. We should rightly be sceptical of this claim. Likewise, then, about Pythagoras.

It seems the discussion around this issue will be revived thanks to the Hindu nationalist User:Prototypehumanoid. In light of that, I think it's best that his edit is removed until more research can be concluded. There are a few reasons we can justify reverting his edit:

1. The source of the content inserted by the editor was not his own, largely taken from another discussion
2. There is no certainty that what was shown in the discussion was sufficient. Indeed with the Indo-Greek Kingdom controversies surrounding the Hindus' theft of the Altar of Alexander the Great (likely helped by the Muslims), and their consequent defacing of it as a way to claim it as their own, suggests that they are prone to use any source to support their claim.

• the Christian apologetic text by Eusebius could easily have been his POV (demonstrating Christianity's superiority against pagan religions), which he felt may have been best achieved by using the Hindus to introduce the notion of Aryanism, thereby diminishing Pythagoreanism's influence by viewing it as derived from Christianity.

I will be doing some more digging over the next few days but I doubt that I will find any sources older than those given above, which will severely limit further discussions as the reliability of the aforementioned texts needs to be seriously addressed.

• I am in agreement with the most recent block quotation that views an account of Pythagoras almost 700 years after he lived as insufficient. While some people do not view his existence as comparable to Jesus of Nazareth (which is okay), others actually do.

• Now add in the fact that Alexander the Great was allegedly influenced by Pythagoreanism (forgoing meat seems to be a pretty central tenet), and you can see how potential Pythagorean roots for the Indo-Greek Kingdom would conflict with the Hindus' own recollection of their history in India. MisinformationFighter (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Although the new material contains some interesting primary sources, I agree with removal of the newly added section, and have done so. Paul August ☎ 20:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pythagoras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904011313/http://www.mathematics-in-europe.eu/images/information_pdf/hist_phil_pdf/hist_pdf/machiavelo.pdf to http://www.mathematics-in-europe.eu/images/information_pdf/hist_phil_pdf/hist_pdf/machiavelo.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027072218/http://www.organelle.org/organelle/tetra/tetraktys.html to http://www.organelle.org/organelle/tetra/tetraktys.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722145956/http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-antiquity/pythagoras.htm to http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-antiquity/pythagoras.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509185539/http://users.ucom.net/~vegan/ to http://users.ucom.net/~vegan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117090606/http://freedocumentaries.net/media/164/Pythagoras/ to http://freedocumentaries.net/media/164/Pythagoras/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2017

2405:204:E28B:CC96:0:0:1A25:80A5 (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 03:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Pythagoras and India

There is a view that Pythagoras visited India. If someone has any authentic knowledge on this issue, then that can be included in the main topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirsha (talk • contribs)

Pythagoras is already mentioned as possibly having visited the Orient in the "Influences" section. It does not mention India specifically because none of the ancient sources that I am aware of directly claim that Pythagoras travelled there. In the prologue to his book The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius mentions the Indian Gymnosophists as having possibly influenced early Greek philosophers ([1]), and, in his "Life of Pythagoras," he mentions that Pythagoras "also journeyed among the Chaldaeans and Magi" ([2]), but he never says anything directly about Pythagoras having visited India. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This claim seems to originate from Harsh Vardhan (Delhi politician), covered here https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pythagorass-theorem-actually-an-Indian-discovery-Harsh-Vardhan/articleshow/45746060.cms Without some evidence (like refering to an ancient book), not noteworthy. prokaryotes (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I found it mentioned in the lectures of Swami Vivekananda. It is in the Volume II of the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. It is mentioned in the Practical Vendanta and other lectures. This reference to Harsh Vardhan, can be easily accessed through internet search. Secondly, such references are desired as they are merely organized talks managed in media. Katolophyromai has right touch the spirit with which this aspect has been raised here. Thankssumir 20:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirsha (talk • contribs)

The article mentions India five times, not sure about the account. It is unclear what is missing, unless your source has more details on the visit.prokaryotes (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Pythagoras father Mnesarchus

Mostly all the ancient historians agree that Pythagoras's father Mnesarchus was originally from Tyre. Aristoxenus in his book the life of the Pythagoras says it, Aristarchus (who was from Samos himself), Theopompus and Neanthes, as well as Clement of Alexandria says it as per this source https://books.google.se/books?id=teoyAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA20&dq=neanthes+of+cyzicus+pythagoras+tyre&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hippobotus says the same according to this source https://books.google.se/books?id=teoyAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA20&dq=neanthes+of+cyzicus+pythagoras+tyre&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Herodotus and Isocrates state also his father was from Tyre as per your previous Note Herodotus, iv. 95, Isocrates, Busiris, 28–29 say he was originally from Tyre. Later writers called him a Tyrrhenian or Phliasian, and gave Marmacus, or Demaratus, as the name of his father: Diogenes Laërtius, viii. 1; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 1, 2; Justin, xx. 4; Pausanias, ii. 13.

I could not find the Fergusson source that you posted in digital format but I did find Fergusson's book Pythagoras: His Lives and the Legacy of a Rational Universe in Scribd where in page 29-30 she goes into the discussion of his father's ancestry. In this source the author states that Iamblichus’ research indicated that both parents traced their ancestry to the first colonists on Samos. The problem with Lamblichus's research is that is based on mythology as exposed in Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (p.2-3) found here https://books.google.se/books?id=EB5UvHrdMpsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=iamblichus+pythagoras&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihgaulgNDXAhUIGZoKHcXSDlEQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=iamblichus%20pythagoras&f=false where he says he descends from Anchaeus and Jupiter who was ordered by the oracle to establish a colony named Samos. Then he goes and says that Pythagoras might actually be the son of Apollo according to some Samian poet. Lamblichus even got the name of Pythagoras' father wrong calling him Mnemarchus instead of Mnesarchus according to this source https://books.google.se/books?id=teoyAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA20&dq=neanthes+of+cyzicus+pythagoras+tyre&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tyre&f=false.

Lamblichus research making Pytagoras a descenddant of Jupiter or the son of Apollo sounds too much like a fantasy as most mythological genealogies. It does not seem like many or any authors agree with Lamblichus research except perhaps with Hermippus. I say perhaps because as stated by Diogenes Laertius in Chapter 1. PYTHAGORAS (c. 582-500 B.C.)

"Having now completed our account of the philosophy of Ionia starting with Thales, as well as of its chief representatives, let us proceed to examine the philosophy of Italy, which was started by Pythagoras,1 son of the gem-engraver Mnesarchus, and according to Hermippus, a Samian, or, according to Aristoxenus, a Tyrrhenian from one of those islands which the Athenians held after clearing them of their Tyrrhenian inhabitants. Some indeed say that he was descended through Euthyphro, Hippasus and Marmacus from Cleonymus, who was exiled from Phlius, and that, as Marmacus lived in Samos, so Pythagoras was called a Samian. [2]

it could be that Hermippus and Aristoxenus might be talking about Pythagoras himself as a Samian or a Tyrrhenian, not about his father just like in your previous Notes 3 source. Aristoxenus has already stated in his Life of Pythagoras that Mnesarchus was from Tyre as stated in the above source https://books.google.se/books?id=teoyAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA20&dq=neanthes+of+cyzicus+pythagoras+tyre&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false so I do not know why Fergusson or any of the later authors of Laertius source Aristoxenus might would think he was refering to Mnesarchus

Fegusson also states that Porphyry also says he was from Tyre and that another two of his sources says he was a "Tyrrhenian" and thus he was uncommitted. She then states that Diogenes Laertius, the earliest of the three biographers, pointed out that the ancient historian Aristoxenus of Tarentum – with excellent contacts, such as Dionysius the Younger of Syracuse and Pythagoreans in the fourth century B.C. – also had said Mnesarchus was a Tyrrhenian. But again Laertius statement is not clear as weather he was talking about Pythagoras or his father and repeating again the above Aristoxenus said also Mnesarchus was from Tyre https://books.google.se/books?id=teoyAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA20&dq=neanthes+of+cyzicus+pythagoras+tyre&pg=PA15&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false This accounts then to two sure sources saying Mnsarchus was a "Thyrrhenian" according to Porphyry.

The problem with the term "Thyrrhenian" is that it was used to refer to non-greek groups of people in ancient times to identify not just the Etruscans, non-greeks from Lemnos and sea peoples but also the Phoenicians who settled colonies in the Thyrrhenian Sea "triangle" of Pirgy, and Punicum in the border of Latium, Sicily and Sardinia as stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrhenians#Identification_with_the_Phoenicians_from_Tyre long before the other groups.

This leaves Lamblichus and his mythological research pretty lonely regarding the origins of Pythagoras's father with the majority of authors stating that he was from Tyre or linked to the Phoenicians of Tyre through the "Thyrrhenians". CalinicoFire (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It is true that some ancient sources claim that Pythagoras's father was from Tyre, but it is far from the only claimant. The source I was referring to in my edit summary is The Music of Pythagoras (2008) by Kitty Ferguson, which is cited in the bibliography. On pages 11-12, it clearly states:

However, there is no other part of Pythagoras' life story, until the events surrounding his death, about which the discussion among them [the ancient sources] became so animated and contradictory as it did regarding his father Mnesarchus' origins. Iamblichus' research indicated that both parents traced their ancestry to the first colonists on Samos. Porphyry was in possession of a conflicting report from a third century b.c. historian named Neanthes - a stickler for juxtaposing conflicting pieces of information - that Mnesarchus was not Samian by birth. Neanthes had had it from one source that Mnesarchus was born in Tyre (in Syria) and from another that he was an Etruscan (Tyrrhenian) from Lemnos. The similarity of the names 'Tyre' and 'Tyrrhenian' had perhaps caused some confusion. Porphyry referred to an additional source, a book with an enticing title, On the Incredible Things Beyond the Thule, that also mentioned Mnesarchus' Etruscan and Lemnos origins. Diogenes Laertius, the earliest of the three biographers, pointed out that the responsible ancient historian Aristoxenus of Tarentum - with excellent contacts such as Dionysius the Younger and Pythagoreans in the fourth century b.c. - also had said Mnesarchus was a Tyrrhenian. All three biographers agreed that if Mnesarchus was not a Samian by birth, he was naturalized on Samos. Diogenes Laertius also threw in that he had learned from one Hermippus, a native of Samos in the third century b.c., that Mnesarchus was a gem engraver.

Here is the link to the source: [3] (although you can easily find it at the bottom of the article). It comes up on a different page than the one I quoted here, so you will have to scroll quite a bit to find the pages I just quoted from, which are 11-12.

By the way, CalinicoFire, I know that you are the same person as ViamarisBalbi and that Enion Glas is another one of your sockpuppets. You should be aware that sockpuppetry in itself is strictly against Wikipedia policy and that you can be blocked for it with no other offenses. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read carefully on the section I have already told you I have review your Fergusson sources in her similar work found here https://books.google.se/books?id=trM7NJz011oC&pg=PT22&dq=pythagoras+tyrrhenian&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn7ofPg9HXAhWKthoKHRGIBMcQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=pythagoras%20tyrrhenian&f=false

My analysis of all the sources on biographers of Pythagoras tells me that so far that 8 ancient Greek biographers say that Pythagoras father Mnsesarchus was from Tyre. 1 of those 8 biographers, Porphyry, besides saying that one of his sources say he was from Tyre, says that two of Neanthes' sources, without saying who those sources were, say he was "Tyrrhenian", which was a term that was used to design non-greek people including Etruscans, Sea Peoples and Phoenicians from Tyre or Tyrians. Seems like Neanthes ends up settling for Mnesarchus being from Tyre as per Clement of Alexandria in his work found here https://books.google.se/books?id=XWpL1zz5cmoC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=Hippobotus+pythagoras+tyre&source=bl&ots=J7BKoQ5Kji&sig=U7jF2HkCx0ChxavgnVedco08doE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEqdL759DXAhVC3KQKHZ25DNYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Hippobotus%20pythagoras%20tyre&f=false

Even Fergusson says that the similarity of "Tyrian" and "Tyrrhenian" had perhaps caused the confusion. And then 1 historian, Lamblichus, uses mythological accounts to say Pythagoras descended from Jupiter and was the son of Apollo, which is known to have been pure legend on Roman times.

You cannot therefore state that Pythagoras father ancestry is disputed or unclear as only Lamblichus seems to have come up with mythology and lengendary claims to divert from the what 90% of the Greek biographers and historian have agreed upon and his statement was known as being pure legend in Roman times.

By the way ViamarisBalbi says that he knows that you, Dr. K and Khirurg will keep on harrassing him and disrupting his contributions to wikipedia after his serves his 2nd block, which was done on him thanks to you and your fellow editors friends. When he served his sentence of a week block he came back and found out that you and your fellow friend editors have been Wikihounding him and reverting his sourced contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding him. He has no problem admitting that his edits revolve around things related to Phoenicia and the Phoenicians just like its obvious that you, Dr. K and Khirurg mainly edit on articles related to Greece and clearly seem to antagonize all his edits because his contributions on personalities and theories dont claim Greek ancestry or origins.

He also claims that is not fair that you get to do 100+ edits on a personality like Pythagoras and then one person comes in and makes an edit that does not please you so you revert it. He says it seems like you want a monopoly on the articles you edit and that wikpedia is an open source encyclopedia as long as statements are back with legitimate sources.

He figueres that this Wikihounding/harassment will not stop and that when he tried to defend his previous block he did not get any help from other editors and his case was left in limbo so he might need to resort to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses to avoid further harassment. He will file a complaint and keep looking for assistance from the board if you dont desistCalinicoFire (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, the historian you keep referring to is named Iamblichus, starting with a capital i, not an L. Second of all, he is not the only one who reports other origins for Mnesarchus aside from the Tyrian one, as you would know if you had actually read my quote above in full. Additionally, your accusation that my reversion of your edit was unfair is invalid because you do not have any modern, secondary sources supporting what you are claiming. The only sources you have presented here are: (a) primary sources with no secondary interpretation, such as Clement of Alexandria and Iamblichus, (b) Ferguson 2011, which I quoted from above, is current cited in the article, and says that Mnesarchus's origins are hotly contested, and (c) Afonasin, Dillon, & Finamore 2012, which is an excellent source, but the passages you reference are places where it is simply summarizing the views of Clement of Alexandria and the sources he relies on and do not make any comments regarding the historical authenticity of such statements.

I do not have any problem whatsoever with mentioning in the article that some ancient historians considered Mnesarchus to have come from Tyre. Such a detail is entirely truthful and is worth noting. In fact, the note that I left in the article actually stated this, until you deleted it. I do, however, have a problem with objectively stating in Wikipedia's voice that Mnesarchus was definitively from Tyre because that is not the case. The claims that he was a Tyrrhenian or a native Samian are also noteworthy. Ultimately, though, I must emphasize that we really do not know anything for certain about Mnesarchus except his name and that he might have been a seal engraver. We do not know where he came from or who he really was aside from Pythagoras's father. The words "Tyrrhenian" and "Tyrian" sound similar and, as both you and Ferguson have rightly pointed out, it is easy to see how ancient writers could have gotten them confused, but they do not mean the same thing. Your assertions regarding the supposedly synonymous nature of the two terms could easily qualify as original research, which we are not allowed to include in our articles.

Finally, I would like to ask of you, ViamarisBalbi, how precisely does your usage of three different accounts simultaneously to edit the same articles, sometimes with what I can only describe as a clearly apparent intention to deceive, qualify as one of the ten "Legitimate uses" of an alternative account listed on the WP:SOCK page? It certainly is not security, privacy, clean start, compromised account, or any of the technical reasons since you edited the same articles using different accounts within just a few minutes of each other. It cannot be doppelgänger or humor accounts because you actually performed edits with all three accounts. It cannot be designated roles or educational purposes, since you have no designated roles and you are not a part of the Wikipedia:Education program. It cannot have been a username violation because you operated all three accounts simultaneously and only one of them was blocked, but for non-username-related reasons. I fail to see how you can justify your usage of multiple accounts as anything other than sockpuppetry. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Kat, if I were you, I wouldn't engage with this, or any, sock. Normally, the best policy is to just ignore, until they get blocked, then revert their sock posts. Dr. K. 04:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

"at large" concluding the first paragraph of the introduction

especialy since the phrase is more applicable to policing in the United States https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/at+large 23h112e (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who originally wrote the sentence with that phrase and I did not see it as being associated with policing, even though I am an American. In any case, I appreciate your feedback, and I am fine with the sentence without the "at large." I suppose it is rather redundant. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

In the third line of paragraph three, change "climactic" to "climatic." 2601:184:407F:B000:599:379B:A19F:119F (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the typo. Thank you for much for pointing that out. I was the one responsible for the error. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pythagoras/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hrodvarsson (talk · contribs) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this soon. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Non-reviewer comment: Lots and lots of Harvard citation errors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: What "errors" are you talking about? I am not aware of any errors. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: The following short citation links are broken because no long citation in Sources is formatted to match them (clicking on the links won't take you to any long citation). There are many reasons why this could be (see Template:Sfn#Wikilink to citation does not work). E.g. "Joost & Gaugier 2016" should probably be "Joost-Gaugier 2016" etc. This is the list of broken citations (all instances of):

• Ferguson 2011
• Joost & Gaugier 2006
• Joost-Gaugier 2007
• Zhmud 2006
• Zhmud 2013
• Riedweg 2002
• Kahn 2003
• 2011

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thanks. I will fix all of these right away. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Are there any left? I think I have fixed all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: these remain:

• Joost-Gaugier 2007
• Ferguson 2011
• Zhmud 2006
• Riedweg 2002

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I have found all the ones you have listed here, I think. I do not think there are any left, but, since I have already demonstrated my ineptitude in finding them, you may want to check to make sure I have taken care of all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Almost. Just two cites of Riedweg 2002 and you're done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I found them and have corrected them. Thank you for your patience and perseverance. Now all the Harvard citation errors are have been corrected. @Hrodvarsson: I am ready to proceed with the rest of the review. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Some comments:

• "Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus pursued inquiry further than all other men and, choosing what he liked from these compositions, made a wisdom of his own - much learning, artful knavery". This is not a direct quote of either of the references.

Yes it is. The exact quote can be found halfway down the page on page 13 of Christiane L. Joost-Gaugier's 2006 book Measuring Heaven: Pythagoras and His Influence on Thought and Art in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, which is one of the two sources cited here. Kahn loosely paraphrases the quotation, saying "Heraclitus attacks him as a clever charlatan: his learning is great, but his wisdom is fraudulent." --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

In Joost-Gaugier it is stated "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he manufactured a wisdom for himself—much learning, artful knavery." Kahn paraphrases but quotes Heraclitus in the footnotes. "Pythagoras son of Mnesarchus pursued inquiry (historié) further than all other men and, choosing what he liked from these compositions, made a wisdom of his own, much learning (polymatheié), artful knavery (kakotechnié)." Neither is the same as the current article version.

@Hrodvarsson: Hmmm... That is odd. I was sure that I had used the exact quote. I must have gotten that other translation of the quote from one of my other books, but I cannot think of which one it was. Oh well. I have corrected the quote now, so it gives the translation given in Joost-Gaugier 2006. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Joost-Gaugier uses an emdash in the quote, not an

• Relatedly, the usage of a hyphen is not in either source and they are not used in this way, per MOS:DASH. Also see "that he - or his students - may have" and change date ranges using hyphens to endashes.

I have converted them all to endashes, as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

"he–or his students–may" should use emdashes or be spaced out. "he – or" or "he—or".

• "Porphyry asserts". Change this and most other uses of "assert" and "claim". WP:SAID. (This is mostly harmless but very important when there is a POV being expressed.)

I have changed most of them. I left in one instance of each where I could not think of a better word. Additionally, the words "claim" and "assertion" each occur once as nouns and the word "claim" also appears once in a quotation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You can use claim in some cases, such as "he claimed x is y" if it is later contradicted that x isn't y, or if there are multiple claims about what x is with no concrete evidence for any claim. It just shouldn't be used when conveying someone's POV if there's no reason to.

• "competing with Homer's more renowned)". His more renowned what? Apologies if I am misreading this line.

The phrase is referring back to the term "rhapsodic tradition." I have removed the phrase since it is not particularly relevant anyway and is not necessary for understanding Pythagoras. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Pythagoras's theorem needs a full stop after it.

I am not sure which instance of the word "theorem" you are referring to. I have done a control F for the word, but all the instances I have found either already have periods after them or do not need periods after them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the equation. It cannot be CtrlF'd as it uses <math>${\displaystyle }$ and is displayed as an image. I will add the period myself for the sake of ease.

• "Walter Burkert rejects this suggestion". Burkert is already introduced, do not need to use his first name. WP:SURNAME

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "4th century BC". All other mentions of century are [word] century.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hrodvarsson: I believe I have fully addressed all of the criticisms you have presented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I have replied. Hrodvarsson (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

More comments:

• A couple instances of "s'" being used when the majority of cases use "Pythagoras's". Consistency is needed.
• "even more fantastic in their descriptions of Pythagoras's legendary achievements". I don't think legendary is needed here if fantastic is used.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Dante Alighieri was obsessed with Pythagorean numerology". The source does state "Dante's fascination, even obsession," but I think "fascinated by" would be better than "obsessed with" as "obsess" can carry a negative connotation.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Newton attributing his discovery of the law of universal gravitation to Pythagoras seems to be notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Newton should also be added to the "Influenced" parameter of the infobox.

I added Newton to the "Influenced" section of the infobox and to the final paragraph of the lead, but I did not add the part about the theory of gravity, because it is a nonessential attribution; no one else has claimed that Pythagoras discovered it and Newton only claimed it to make himself look impressive for having discovered something that only Pythagoras, the greatest of all sages, had discovered before. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I meant to suggest that you just add Newton along with Copernicus and Kepler, apologies if i did not convey my point clearly. It would be undue weight to mention specifics for Newton's case in the lead, yes.

• "Nonetheless, many...". I think this should be changed to "Classical historians dispute whether Pythagoras made these discoveries, and many...".

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• "probably either originated". I think probably should be changed to likely as probably is used a few lines earlier in "probably prohibited his followers".

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• The lead's last paragraph could be split in two after "to what extent, if at all, he actually contributed to mathematics or natural philosophy." One half is discussing his (supposed) achievements, other is discussing his influence on later philosophers/mathematicians.

They originally were separate, but I combined them to make the paragraph length closer to the length of the preceding paragraph about his life and teachings. I have now separated them again, as you have requested. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Okay, that's all I can find. I now believe the article meets the GA criteria. Good work! Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

the poet Heraclitus >> the philosopher Heraclitus

Please replace "the poet Heraclitus" with "the philosopher Heraclitus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeofstorm (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Edgeofstorm: The source calls him a "poet" and he wrote exclusively in poetry, much like every other major Greek writer during this time period. It was not until the late fifth century BC that it became common for people to start writing in prose. Herodotus was the first major writer to do it, although a few others had done it before him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

His favorite color was purple. </ref></ref>http://www.answers.com/Q/What_was_Pythagoras_favorite_color 40.133.59.10 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: answers.com is not a reliable source, and favourite colour is non-encyclopedic trivia anyway. NiciVampireHeart 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please help

Somebody! Correct these lines please:

"and that the number five represented marriage, because it was the sum of two and three"

There must be 4 instead of 2. It is Pythagorean theorem: 3 (man) plus 4 (woman) is equal to 5 (marriage). See p. 429 of same book "Burkert, Walter. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Димушка (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That that

Can someone get rid of one of these "that"s please

Main article: Pythagoreanism

Both Plato and Isocrates state that that

@Catallus2: The extra "that" seems to have been inserted yesterday, probably by accident, during a rather disastrous attempt by another editor to copyedit the entire article. I have now removed the redundant word. My foolish decision to nominate this article for FAC made a real mess of everything. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Pythagoras, father of numbers

Hi! Is there any source for the claim father of numbers?
Regards no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndik preferentsn ^{talk contribs} 08:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@קיין ומוויסנדיק פּרעפֿערענצן: I am not currently aware of any academic sources saying that Pythagoras has ever been widely known as the "Father of Numbers." In any case, that would be an egregiously inaccurate title for him, since he was not the "Father of Numbers" in any respect at all. Mathematics has existed as a discipline since at least the time of the ancient Sumerians and counting certainly existed long before that. As I discuss in the article, Pythagoras certainly did not really discover the theorem that now bears his name, since it was known to the Babylonians over a millennium before he was even born, and we cannot even be sure that Pythagoras himself was even personally involved in mathematics at all. Indeed, Walter Burkert argues that the historical Pythagoras was probably not a mathematician. Since we know for certain Pythagoras did not invent numbers, because numbers were already being used long, long before he was born, and we are not even sure if he was really a mathematician, it would make little sense to call him the "Father of Numbers." —Katolophyromai (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

Please change the information regarding the father of Pythagoras stating that his origins are not know. Pythagoras is born of a Phoenician father, Msenarchus, who was from Tyre. There is a story that the father, a wealthy merchant, brought corn to the island of Samos during a famine and was granted citizenship of Samos as sign of gratitude.

Sources: Porphyry, Vita Pythagorea (Leipzig 1886) Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras in M Hadas and M Smith, Heroes and Gods (London, 1965)

!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> Faissaldamaj (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bust

Hello. I have a question about the photo of the bust. Is it known when and by whom this bust was made? Was it made during Pythagoras' life in Greece, or is it Roman? Just wondering if this is what the man looked like. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnarl42 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Absence of written works

The article doesn't concern any possible reason about the total absence of written works of Pythagoras even if it is hard to believe that his geometrical and mathematical thoughts could be developed, demonstrated to hi followers and kept preserved through a merely oral transmisssn master of philosophy. Did he have a two-section school like the acroamatic/acousmatic dichotomy existing in the Paritetic school of Aristotle?

In the case of the Stagirite, it was supposed to be for religious and initiatic reasons. We can be sure some authors have just hypothesized for an initiatic Pythagoras. Waiting for more reliable WP sources, it can be added a concern for the total and yet unjustified absence of written works by the ancient Samoean Master of the Jewish gematria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.139.142 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

“Climactic” zones, seriously??

Re. Discoveries in astronomy: So Pythagoras divided the Earth into five zones reaching a crescendo of dramatic suspense or sexual gratification? I figured world travel could be exciting, thrilling even, but little did I suspect the true extent of it! There's a hot time to be had in the tropics, to be sure, but polar escapades leave me cold. It's all a matter of CLIMATIC distinction. 2601:545:8201:6290:8522:9D48:A7AE:ED77 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

In the infobox and under "Attributed discoveries/In astronomy" change "climactic zones" to "climatic zones". The world may be an exciting place, but not inherently that exciting — or have I missed out on something? 2601:545:8201:6290:8522:9D48:A7AE:ED77 (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep calm, it's all over now. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Near East is anachronistic to Pythagoras' lifetime

Near East terminology is a 19th century AD invention based on the extent of either the Ottoman or British empires. It's anachronistic to Pythagoras' 6th century BCE life span. There are perfectly good substitute terms for the places that Pythagoras traveled, such as Levant, or the names of the actual empires that controlled the regions involved in his travels (Ancient Egypt (26th dynasty), Neo-Babylonian_Empire, Achaemenid_Empire, and Crete)

• According to the Levant Wiki page, 'Levant' is typically used by modern historians with reference to the history of the regionEditorfromMars (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

• Leonida Lazzari, Pitagora, Editrice Pitagora, Bologna 2007. 93.40.215.53 (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What is it that you want me to change? Please state in change x to y please. Thanks! HeartGlow ^(talk) 12:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Look up the modern hyperian philosopher morgue, pythagorus founded the Pythagorean Illuminati. If this information continues to be debunked I will have reason to believe that the founder of Wikipedia is a elite. Adam weishaupt should also have books made by him which enforces my statement. Refusal provides more pinpoints in my investigation against the 1%. Hyperian illuminati (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The hyperian Illuminati is the side association with qanon Hyperian illuminati (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Metempsychosis or the 'Transmigration of Souls' - Reincarnation

MODERATOR: This sentence should be tweaked to include...metempsychosis or the "transmigration of souls" - reincarnation. 2601:589:4801:5660:21C7:367F:8F24:8818 (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a minor edit as the article is semi-protected: Biographical sources

The subsection Biographical Sources states: "Three lives of Pythagoras have survived from late antiquity" with "lives" being hyperlinked to: Historical biographies. Can someone just please edit "lives" to say "biographies"? It's very poor writing, is confusing, and it makes literally no sense in English. I'd do it myself, but the article is protected. Thanks. MelonBallin (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. - car chasm (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we should fault Plutarch for not writing Ancient Biographies of the Noble Greeks and Romans (alternative title: Parallel Ancient Biographies), since the actual title is very poor writing, is confusing, makes literally no sense in English. Deor (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Who was pythagoras in urdu

Urdu 103.162.137.9 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Pythogoras

He is Greek philosopher. A big mathematician 2409:4050:2E88:2ABD:0:0:2D8B:D301 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022 (2)

</ref>

Connections with India (18)

The visit of Pythagoras to India was conclusive in the mind of Voltaire (1694–1778) (pen name of Francois Marie Arouet) as he writes that “Pythagoras, the gymnosophist, may alone serve an incontestable proof that true science was cultivated in India. . . . It is even more probable that Pythagoras learned the properties of the right-angled triangle from the Indians, the invention of which was afterward ascribed to him.” (13) According to Voltaire, “The Orientals, and particularly the Indians, treated all subjects under the veil of fable and allegory: for that reason Pythagoras, who studied among them, expresses himself always in parables.” (14) Voltaire had no doubt about Pythagoras’ visit to India and wrote: “All the world knows that Pythagoras, while he resided in India, attended the school of Gymnosophists and learned the language of beasts and plants.” (15) D. E. Smith, a noted historian who is known for his classic book, History of Mathematics, points out a resemblance between the Hindu and Pythagorean philosophies: “In spite of the assertions of various writers to the contrary, the evidence derived for the philosophy of Pythagoras points to his contact with the Orient. The mystery of the East appears in all his teaching . . . indeed his [Pythagoras’] whole philosophy savors much more of the Indian than of the Greek civilization in which he was born.” (16) On a possible Indian influence on Pythagoras in comparison to Egyptian influence, H. W. Rawlinson (1810–1895 CE) concludes: “It is more likely that Pythagoras was influenced by India than by Egypt. Almost all the theories, religious, philosophical, and mathematical, taught by the Pythagoreans were known in India in the sixth century B.C. [BCE].” (17) Rawlinson is the person who first decoded cuneiform language of Babylon after discovering the Darius’ Behistun inscriptions. He also served the British empire and lived in India.

<13 Voltaire, 1901, vol. 29, p. 174.> <14 Voltaire, 1901, vol. 24, p. 39. > <15 Voltaire, vol. 4, p. 47> <16 Smith, 1925, vol. I, p. 72.> <17 Rawlinson, p. 5 in the book by Garratt, 1938.> <18 Ancient Hindu Science Its Transmission and Impact on World Cultures, Alok Kumar, p.p. 152 > --Toeditinwiki (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC) Toeditinwiki (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is already answered above, please do not open duplicate requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

Please change " " to

[ Before the header "Death", followings to be added:- ]

Connections with India (18)

The visit of Pythagoras to India was conclusive in the mind of Voltaire (1694–1778) (pen name of Francois Marie Arouet) as he writes that “Pythagoras, the gymnosophist, may alone serve an incontestable proof that true science was cultivated in India. . . . It is even more probable that Pythagoras learned the properties of the right-angled triangle from the Indians, the invention of which was afterward ascribed to him.” (13) According to Voltaire, “The Orientals, and particularly the Indians, treated all subjects under the veil of fable and allegory: for that reason Pythagoras, who studied among them, expresses himself always in parables.” (14) Voltaire had no doubt about Pythagoras’ visit to India and wrote: “All the world knows that Pythagoras, while he resided in India, attended the school of Gymnosophists and learned the language of beasts and plants.” (15) D. E. Smith, a noted historian who is known for his classic book, History of Mathematics, points out a resemblance between the Hindu and Pythagorean philosophies: “In spite of the assertions of various writers to the contrary, the evidence derived for the philosophy of Pythagoras points to his contact with the Orient. The mystery of the East appears in all his teaching . . . indeed his [Pythagoras’] whole philosophy savors much more of the Indian than of the Greek civilization in which he was born.” (16) On a possible Indian influence on Pythagoras in comparison to Egyptian influence, H. W. Rawlinson (1810–1895 CE) concludes: “It is more likely that Pythagoras was influenced by India than by Egypt. Almost all the theories, religious, philosophical, and mathematical, taught by the Pythagoreans were known in India in the sixth century B.C. [BCE].” (17) Rawlinson is the person who first decoded cuneiform language of Babylon after discovering the Darius’ Behistun inscriptions. He also served the British empire and lived in India.

References

13 Voltaire, 1901, vol. 29, p. 174. 14 Voltaire, 1901, vol. 24, p. 39. 15 Voltaire, vol. 4, p. 47 16 Smith, 1925, vol. I, p. 72. 17 Rawlinson, p. 5 in the book by Garratt, 1938. 18 Ancient Hindu Science Its Transmission and Impact on World Cultures, Alok Kumar, p.p. 152 Toeditinwiki (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is already covered in two sections of the article, where it would likely fit better. Also, it should be written as a summary, rather than a series of very long quotes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This must be written as what I have written. This is history and must be written in the same manner. People must know the truth and not what we think. This can not be summary. So, must be included as a paragraph before the header "Death" with the header of "Connections with India". Toeditinwiki (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Biography of Pythagoras

He was a successfull mathematician and his all inventions are known as Pythagoras series. 103.61.108.112 (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sulba sutra

sulba sutra was dated between 800to 400 BCE and it is exactly don't know when it was been written completely. Ppppphgtygd (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Followers of Cylon and Ninon attacked the Pythagoreans during one of their meetings, either in the house of Milo or in some other meeting-place"

If I have understood the sources - the Pythagoreans were attacked at their meeting place circa 510 BC. Then, they were attacked again in 454 BC. This second attack took place at the former house of Milo, the wrestler. Cake (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

change hile Neanthes, in the fifth book of his 'Fables' states he was a Syrian, from the city of Tyre: to hile Neanthes, in the fifth book of his 'Fables' states he was from the city of Tyre, Phoenicia, nowadays Lebanon. Other sources also confirms this fact <ref><https://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_pythagoras.html>, <ref><Karim El Koussa, 'Pythagoras the Mathemagician', Oct 2010>

https://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_pythagoras.html Scmed (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Given source is a blog by a single author, that says in the FAQ about their sources: Wikipedia (probably the main single source) Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 11:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern secondary sources

None of the sources listed in the section "Modern secondary sources" are cited in the article, so why does it exist? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong, and you broke a lot of references by adding ref=none to them. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

According to User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js, many were not cited. You solved the problem a different way, by moving then out to a "Further reading" section. But my point still stands: why list sources that we don't use? (xref WP:ELNO).

I added "ref=none" to just three sources but I acknowledge that this was an error. I won't bore you with the detail of how I misled myself.

Many give a page url but use url=, which attaches the hyperlink to title of the whole book. It should use page=[https://etc.etc.etc.&pg=PAnnn nnn]. So you also reverted my (many) corrections of this error. (By the way, Google has become far more parsimonious with the amount of text it displays to a request for a specific page, so I suspect that many of these links are no longer effective.)

Many give a google books URL for no obvious reason, so why give this bookseller pride of place? You reverted my corrections of this error too.

I don't intend to pursue these points so it is for the usual editors to decide if they wish to follow up. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

When someone introduces reference errors it's not up to me to pick apart the good and bad parts of their edit. You claimed that none of the sources were used when in fact most are - only 8 were not. If you can come up with better links for the sources used then knock yourself out. Personally I never use Google books if I can avoid it, it gives different results for different people. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)