Talk:Ladislaus I of Hungary

Image

Hi, I changed the picture to a miniature of the king from the Chronicon Pictum, a 14th century text. I think it has value due to its age. The bust was a little far away to serve as the ideal main picture, I think, but I think it certainly could be added elsewhere in the article. Additionally, there's another miniature of the divine coronation:
Korossyl 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I also planned to replace it with another picture. The old one was too modern for me ;). How about a picture of Oradea's Ladislaus statue? --fz22 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, how about editing the horrible grammar mistakes in the text? Some of the sentences are incomprehensible too! I've tried to root out some but got bored, partially due to those obfuscatory utterances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.110.117 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I bumped this article back to a start class (it was rated A-class). This article needs a stronger lead that makes the importance of the saint clear, to be divided into sections, the use of more references and sources, a couple of quality external links, and in-text citations. (note: a B-class article should have at least one high-quality source, this article has none). Please see the Saints quality scale and assessment page for some of the characteristics of A-class articles, and suggestions for improvement. Thanks -- Pastordavid 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Miskolc-Bükkszentlászló

On the Bükkszentlászló page:

In 1940 the village took the name Bükkszentlászló, which refers to the Bükk mountains and to King Ladislaus I, the patron saint of the village's church.

Where to include this information on the page for Ladislaus I? Perhaps under Legacy, or a new heading, Commemmoration? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy - the symbolic meaning of the battle axe

The mythological interpretation of the Saint Ladislaus legend mentions that several scenes of the legend occour on archeological finds from all over Eurasia. One among them is the wrestling ''without arms: the saint himself does not carry a battle-axe, it is wielded by the maiden he rescues. It is notable, that both the saint and the maiden are depicted in silver, symbolising the moon, thus the crescent-shaped battle axe is a moon symbol as well: it does not appear out of thin air, the maiden uses the powerof the moon she is associeted with. This theory is based on the frescos, further details are to be found in the works of Gyula László and Géza Nagy. I will look up the exact sources and the details if the editors find the question worthy to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.164.236 (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this information does not seem to be that relevant, but if you provide some reliable sources, then this could be mentioned, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally beloved king

One of the first sentences of the article states that "no other Hungarian king was so generally beloved by the people". I know that this sentence is based on Britannica, but are we sure that it is reliable? The Britannica article contains other stupid data as well: for instance, he "introduced Roman Catholicism in Croatia", Ladislaus's legal code which "brought ... prosperity to his dominions", he died "while preparing for the First Crusade". It is obvious that the author of the Britannica article only used Ladislaus's Legend when writing this article. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning his cult (see Nagyvárad). On the other hand, I would like to recommend a publication in Hungarian language about Ladislaus' ideology of power: Bollók, János: "Szent Imre alakja középkori krónikáinkban". In: Fügedi, Erik (ed.): Művelődéstörténeti tanulmányok a magyar középkorról. Gondolat, Budapest, 1986. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with you, we should write of its legends and their importance in the development of Hungarian culture. My only concern that Britannica pretends that provides neutral info, but almost all its statements are based on Ladislaus's legend. And legends are rarely neutral sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Date when canonized

In the lead it says 29 June 1192 but further down in the call out section King Saint Ladislaus, it says 27 June 1192. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 27 June 1192 is the correct date. I modified the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Ladislaus" is the Hungarian version of "Vladislav"

"Ladislaus" is Latin; "László" is Hungarian. No? 216.8.145.227 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes... and? Surtsicna (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. The article says that "Ladislaus is the Hungarian version of Vladislav." I would fix it myself, but since the statement is sourced I didn't want to touch it. 216.8.145.227 (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. I fixed the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Text is being sandwiched by images

MOS:SANDWICH: Sometimes less is more, like this previous version that is much more readable. Can we make it look more like that once again? Azure94 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, so I restored the old version of the article. However, a separate image gallery has its right to exist, so it can be expanded with additional images, of course within a reasonable framework. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)