" 

 Plato 

 Everything but the first sentence of this section has numerous problems, it seems not salvageable to me.  

 1) the second sentence says ""some"". who?  

 2) the whole rest of the section has not one single footnote. It reads like original research or the opinions of someone who holds a particular reading of Plato, which is opposed to the consensus of peer-reviewed publications.  

 3) it discusses some philospher as ""anti-platonists"" for the reading of Plato. This term has no meaning, except that the author appears to believe that anyone who disagrees with his/her reading is thereby against Plato. It is a pejorative, ad-hominem reasoning.  

 4) It gives a long list of what is required to understand Plato. Not relevant to the subject, not supported by references, and implying those who hold differing views from the author do so because of inadequate ability to read Plato- all apparently the unsupported opinion of the author.  

 5) it makes a conclusion in the last sentence of the first paragraph that is completely unsupported by reasoning, by references, etc. justified only by the term ""it seems"". Again, apparently the opinion of the author who seems to consider himself/herself an authority because, by implication, he/she satisfies the long list of attributes given in the previous two sentences.  

 6) it accuses some positions as being the result of working from translations rather than the original greek, without saying who or substantiating the claim.  

 7) it talks of the ""so-called modern"" etc. Charged, emotional, judgmental terminology. 

 This passage reads like it was written by a member of a religious group self-identified as ""Platonist"" with an idiosyncratic reading of Plato and opposed to the consensus or mainstream academic views. They may have injected their unsupported views throughout Wikipedia articles on Plato. 

 It appears to be the original research and or opinion of one person, the author. 

 This passage should be completely be re-written to fit the standards of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, if not mostly removed, I think it should at least be marked up to indicate missing references, pejorative terms, original research, specifying who is being talked about etc."