Talk:Laszlo Toth

Edit Warriors

A substantive edit containing factual information was reverted by Οἶδα with no stated justification. This user should consider using the Talk page to make inquiries with other editors prior to engaging in the unilateral and unjustified destruction of contributions by others. Their "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to policing Wikipedia edits is most undiplomatic, as is their social strategy of claiming that undoing their unilateral deletion constitutes an "edit war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by QSQVyYnixUJK (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@QSQVyYnixUJK:

"with no stated justification"

I would assume that your opening of this discussion indicates your interest in building consensus. So to that end I would ask that you please not lie to get your point across. Here is a recap of what happened: You added text which was previously added to the article by another user and removed by Donald Albury with the explanation:

That László Tóth, as well as others sharing the name, is listed at László Tóth

Another user also added the same reference and I removed it citing the previous user and my stated view that "This fails to prove a solid connection between the two". You then added the same information to the article. I removed it and clearly stated the same rationale in my edit. You changed the article from its existing state, and now are edit warring to restore your changes. I believe it is incumbent upon you to desist and defend your additions on the talk page given the users who object. I would note that you cited absolutely no sources, which is more than enough to warrant the unilateral "destruction" of your contribution. However, please let's drop the temperature way down and study the topic at hand. The issue, as I stated, is that the text fails to draw a meaningful connection to this person. It is speculation and effectively WP:ORIGINAL. The previous editor added a source by this Collider article which at least supported their text:

Corbet’s name choice for his protagonist is perhaps intentional and/or ironic. The Brutalist is shot in the real marble quarry in Italy (Carrara) where Michelangelo sourced materials for his statues, including the Pietà. The fictional László takes his client Harrison Lee Van Buren (Guy Pearce) there to source marble for the community center they're building. As Los Angeles Times critic Amy Nicholson points out in her review of the film, Michelangelo worked for contentious employers who refused to compensate him, just like László in the film.

However, that is also just speculation. The author even alludes to how if "you look up the name of Brody’s character, an infamous Hungarian named Laszlo Toth should appear in the search results." Finally, allow me to post the actual truth to end this discussion once and for all. As I previously stated on this very talk page, "László Tóth" is basically the Hungarian equivalent of "John Williams". This same point is made in an interview with The Brutalist's co-screenwriter Mona Fastvold published in USA Today:

Was László Tóth a real person?

The short answer is no. A quick Google search shows that there is at least one famous László Tóth, a Hungarian-born geologist who’s best known for vandalizing Michelangelo's Pieta statue in 1972. But “that’s just a coincidence,” Fastvold says. “László Tóth is like John Smith in Hungary – it’s one of the most common names. We’ve spent a lot of time in Hungary, so that name just felt good for a Hungarian character.”

Who inspired Adrien Brody’s character in ‘The Brutalist?’

The film’s protagonist is an amalgamation of influential American architects such as Paul Rudolph and Louis Kahn, as well as Marcel Breuer. Like Tóth, Breuer was a Hungarian-Jewish architect who worked in the Brutalist style. But unlike the character, he moved to New York in 1937 before World War II.

“There was a book called ‘Marcel Breuer and a Committee of Twelve Plan a Church,’ and narratively, that was one of the biggest inspirations,” Corbet says. “It’s a pretty dry account of the struggles Breuer went through to realize Saint John’s Abbey in Minnesota, and there’s some inferences of the bigotry he faced. But just as it is in the movie, no one says the quiet part out loud."

In the light of this information, which has been publicly acessible to anyone with an internet connection since the article was published on January 18, 2025, I believe it is factually innaccurate and patently irresponsible to include mention of The Brutalist in this article and to suggest a connection between the two. Now I would appreciate it if you would self-revert your restored edit because I'm not interested in further engaging in an edit war with you. Οἶδα (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian's Notes & Queries

For a long time now, the article has cited The Guardian's Notes & Queries. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe 'notes and queries' are questions and musings that people write into papers/magazines. I do not think this would be a reliable source all by itself, because it is just opinions from the public. Οἶδα (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Page move

I boldly moved this as it's a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. It needs more work to focus on the incident, but it should suffice for now. I couldn't figure out how to remove the interlanguage links (or if they should be). Looking for help in that respect.—Chowbok ☠ 03:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long. I don't think there's any good argument for keeping it under Toth, but if you have one, let us hear it.—Chowbok ☠ 14:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I always appreciate a bold move, but in this instance I believe there should be a proper move discussion that actually examines the sources rather than "I think"s or "I don't think"s. It's not that I even disagree, but rather that I would like to see such a discussion develop for this article that has stood at this title uninterruped for 20 years (and 18 years since BLP1E became policy). Also, such a discussion would also help gain consensus for the title, which presumably lacked the article "the" before Pietà, and could potentially be titled something other than "vandalism" (or not), as well as incorporating a proper noun due to the fact that Pietà refers to any "subject in Christian art depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary cradling the mortal body of Jesus Christ after his Descent from the Cross", and not specifically to Michelangelo's Pietà [whose article is located at Pietà (Michelangelo)]. Οἶδα (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, we can probably work something out. I think "Vandalism" is a pretty accurate description of what happened, but I have no problem with using a name for the artwork you feel is more appropriate.—Chowbok ☠ 21:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear. Vandalism is likely the best descriptor. I wasn't sure because I was quickly looking at many sources and they describe it with "attack" and "damage". Stephen Corey even wrote a poem titled "Attacking the Pietà". But that can be decided upon in a further discussion. Οἶδα (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

So how about moving this to Vandalism of Michelangelo's Pietà? We can discuss the other issues if you want, but I think it's pretty clear that Toth is not notable in any way aside from this event.—Chowbok ☠ 04:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but what I was saying was I would like more input from other editors. A simple proposed move could bring that. As I previously alluded, the article has stood at this title uninterruped for 20 years (and 18 years since BLP1E became policy). It also has 11 corresponding articles on other Wikipedias all of which are for the person and not the event. I think a documented consensus would be helpful given the page's age. Until then it is only the undeveloped opinion of you and I. Οἶδα (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2025

Laszlo Toth → Vandalism of Michelangelo's Pietà – Toth is not notable for anything other than this one incident. It clearly falls under WP:BLP1E. —Chowbok ☠ 12:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Support move to a name that is in common use Subject appears to be notable only for this one event. Taking WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION into account, what should the article be titled? Vandalism of Michelangelo's Pietà, 1972 attack on Michelangelo's Pietà, or something else? Οἶδα (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources analysis:

https://web.archive.org/web/20111106095407/http://www.stlpublicradio.org/programs/commentaries/commentary.php?cid=1310
Brief comment attesting to Bob Cassilly's momentous role in subduing Toth after his attack on the Pietà

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/22/archives/pieta-damaged-in-hammer-attack-assailant-with-hammer-damages-the.html
News report recounting the event, the restoration issues, the statue's creation, and identifying Toth and his criminal detention, the pope's reaction, the statue's transfer and presentation at the 1964 New York World's Fair, future protection plans, and Toth's bizarre conduct and his living arrangement and lifestyle.

https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/28/archives/a-hammer-for-the-madonna-pieta.html
News item briefly recounting the event and identifying Toth in 3 sentences, 7 sentences mentioning other similar events and 6 sentences commenting on the repair process.

https://books.google.com/books?id=60ba0VmXVM8C&pg=PA202
Book by an art historian on iconoclasm and vandalism which dedicates one paragraph to the events of Toth's act of vandalism, his behavior therein, his criminal proceeding and their conclusion that Toth has "not been heard of since"; one paragraph summarising the "archetypal analysis" of the event by two Canadian literary critics (titled The Attack on the Pietà: An Archetypal Analysis as well as another philosophical interpretation by a French author and psychological labels by a German writer; one paragraph of biographical information by the aforementioned German writer recounting Toth's Hungarian and Australian origins, his education, work history, his behavioral changes, ideology and residence in Italy; and one paragraph analyzing his motives within his identification with Michelangelo and Jesus Chris and how his "idiosyncratic and desperate self-realization followed paths that singular artists and collective definitions of artistic activity had also trodden and helped to lay down to some extent."

All of the sources would suggest Toth is notable for this one event and that he has remained exceedingly low-profile, so much so that basic bio details about him remain unknown and rely on unreliable articles (see talk discussion above) and unverifiable internet comments (also see above). There's a Wired article about Toth from 2006, but it repeats all of the same information and speculation. I am not an expert of WP:BLP1E and I understand that it is often misunderstood so if the application here is not appropriate I would encourage other editors to participate and clarify. Οἶδα (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sculpture, WikiProject Australian crime, and alian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 11:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose but leave a redirect No need to rename an article on a person to a title that isn't even a name Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean, "isn't even a name"? I have no idea what you're talking about.—Chowbok ☠ 05:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Chowbok I mean isn't the name of a person Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

That's actually the point. This article shouldn't be named after the person, but after the event. The event is notable; the person is not.—Chowbok ☠ 18:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

When I asked for community input this is not what I had in mind. What you posted displays a superficial understanding of this topic and of Wikipedia policy in general, and is honestly barely comprehensible. Οἶδα (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Support move to a name for the event. This is Wikipedia policy as the person is of no consequence.--Grahame (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Pietà (Michelangelo). Actually on reflection, there is actually nothing in the article of significance, including his putative death.--Grahame (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)