Talk:Laszlo Toth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Australia: Crime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Laszlo Toth is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture

Untitled

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 December 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here. |} fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stuff

Some discussion should be given to the cultural and artistic significance of this event. The debate about whether to repair the statue was intense, with many firmly believing that to recreate the damaged parts would cheapen the masterwork of the whole. The parts were eventually replaced with molded pieces, but the event sparked an art world discussion of the value of masterpieces and the extreme reverence of "genius". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.66.16 (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First person account by User:211.20.217.61

I reverted this out as a violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. An account like the one reverted may be used in writing a Wikipedia article only if it has been published by a reputable third-party. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

The external links refer to him as Laszlo Toth. Is there a special reason the article is calling him Lazlo Toth? Or can I just move it? Skarioffszky 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A true hero!

This man is, or should be, a hero to Wikipedia's deletionist cabal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayEmEcksBeeCueVee (talk • contribs) 08:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your comment should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:58DA:1F2B:3676:8AF1 (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deportation

deportation seems wrong in this article context, but rendition and extradition didn't seem more appropriate to me --Melaen (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the same person as the proponent of Ancient astronauts

There is another Làszlo Tóth (from Nagykanizsa, Hungary), who is a proponent of ancient astronauts. In 1985, he published a paper: Làszlo Tóth: Die technische Interpretation des Palenque-Reliefs, in: Peter & Johannes Fiebag: Aus den Tiefen des Alls. Handbuch zur Prä-Astronautik. Wissenschaftler auf den Spuren extraterrestrischer Eingriffe. 2nd ed. Tübingen/ Zürich/ Paris: Hohenrain-Verlag 1985, pp. 151-167, notes on p. 399. Presumably, he is the same who was a speaker on the 1976 conference of the Ancient Astronaut Society. The mentioned paper is accompanied with a biographical snippet, according to which he was born in 1945, has an engineering diploma, and works with propulsion and aircraft engines. There is also a picture of him. I reckon he is a different person than the one who damaged the Pieta - just thought the information would be useful if ever anybody would confuse the two. (I was fooled for a moment, too.) -- Jonas kork (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

An user added September 11, 2012 as death date. The first thing that came to my mind was to verify whether the birthdate was the same or not. It is not. When Tóth was arrested in Italy, the Italian police found an ID that showed that his birthdate was July 1, 1938 and the birth place was Pilisvörösvár (HUN) and that he resided in 13 Ashcroft Avenue, Casula.

We have two possibilities:

1) the ID card that Tóth brought to Italy read false data; 2) the Lászlo Tóth who died on September 11, 2012 is another Lászlo Tóth born February 23, 1939.

Please note that Lászlo Tóth is a common name in Hungary, and is not unlikely that more than one "Lászlo Tóth" emigrated to Australia.

As far as I know, we don't have verified news about Tóth's fate after he was sent back to Australia. Giovanni, Italy. --Giovanni Fosbury (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laszlo Toth. 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/20111106095407/http://www.stlpublicradio.org/programs/commentaries/commentary.php?cid=1310 to http://www.stlpublicradio.org/programs/commentaries/commentary.php?cid=1310

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) 20:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable evidence that the subject is deceased

This was previously mentioned above, at Talk:Laszlo Toth#Date of death, but I cannot find any reliable sources which indicate the subject is deceased. The death claim was thankfully removed from this article back in May. I removed it from other language Wikipedias, some of which have now added it back using a 21 May 2021 article from Wanted in Rome [1] as their source. I do not believe this is a reliable source in this case. Toth's supposed death was listed on here and on other Wikis for many years, including on 21 May 2021 when that article was published. I highly doubt that article's author is privy to sources different from the unreliable ones that have been referenced here. Blogs and unconfirmed obituary pages are not reliable sources. And as also mentioned above, "László Tóth" is basically the Hungarian equivalent of "John Williams".

I am posting this to further make it known and ask that you please do not add this controversial death claim unless there are Reliable sources. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is this a reliable source? https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/the-day-michelangelos-pieta-was-vandalised-in-a-hammer-attack.html Qwertzu111111 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I finally was able to access the 'About Us' page, it was all about how great the site is. I didn't see anything about sourcing of its articles, editorial control, or correction of errors. If other, better sources have the same information, use them. If Wanted in Rome is the only known source for a claim, I advise against using it. Donald Albury 19:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My post specifically references that source. I agree with the user above, and feel it is irresponsible to make a controversial claim of death using a single citation of a dubious source. Οἶδα (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: recent edits by Johnbod

Normally I try position myself as far away as possible from an edit war, and refuse to even personally perform a second revert. But your edits are inexcusable and deserved to be reverted. I will not revert further because I will wait for you or another editor to do so. Sorry if you take issue with my "rude" tone but the continuous revision to this page leaves very little patience for those who ignore the clear and ample warning and believe they are somehow unique and have discovered a new source. There are not "other sources". You are free to present them but so far you have only re-introduced a dubious webzine article which we have already discussed here and a scandalous podcaster's blog article (which merely regurgitates what was on Wikipedia at the time it was published, which, by the way, was already listed as [citation needed]) And you'll excuse me when I encounter another user doing this, who I am shocked to learn is not only a veteran editor but one whose experience far exceeds my own many times over and who has clearly ingrained Wikipedia as a fundamental component in their life [2]. I consider myself a novice, but even I know not to reintroduce controversial content about a person's life and especially a claim of their death into a BLP article with sources well below the threshold of WP:VERIFIABILITY. That sort of reckless disregard deserves to be called out. They have no excuse not to know better, and for it to be reflected in their editing behavior. It is completely unbecoming of an editor of their tenure and background. This is a user who has seemingly made historical topics the centre of their editing focus..... I frankly don't care if you are offended by me being "rude". You have shown no interest to even engage and actually stated as much. Then a brazen reversion with no explanation after being clearly asked to discuss on the talk page? That is rude. Claiming someone is dead without sufficient proof? That is beyond rude and eclipses anything I have written. I am also not interested in further engaging this editor unless they recognise their flagrant irresponsibile treatment. There is no discussion to be had here unless we can start with that acknowledgement.

Instead, I will address @Donald Albury: You have shown a responsible concern for the reliability of the sources here on this talk page in the past. So if you are comfortable with the article making a grossly unverifiable and contentious (WP:BLPRS) claim of death then I'll drop the matter and break off. I will not fall to the sin of hesitation. If anyone else believes I am way off-base, then feel free to explain why because I would love to hear. It would absolutely shatter my conception of Wikipedia's biographical standards and what is expected of every editor, let alone one of the most active Wiki editors of all time. You may feel I am overreacting. But this post comes from the certitude that I am morally enjoined to not contribute to a website that permits behavior such as this or respects editors like Johnbod. Οἶδα (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have actually read the latest version of the article, last edited by me. There is no claim of death at all. I won't engage further on this page, or with Οἶδα anywhere. Life's too short. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the next course of action? I will be blocked if I try to uphold this website's own biographical standards. And I am not going to engage with: no acknowledgement of wrongdoing. First an unverifiable explicit claim of death and burial, then settling for the equally unverifiable weasel "Toth later married in Willetton, Western Australia, and passed his later years in a rest home in Strathfield NSW." If they can't hear the implication, then I can't tell them. I will wait for an editor with an actual backbone to remove what is unverifiable and must be removed. I am not interested in continuous denials of responsibility followed by a trite exit. May only users now be warned of Johnbod's inability to learn and not violate BLP standards. They've had 18 years to learn to not be this way. But alas. Οἶδα (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]