Talk:Rich man and Lazarus

Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Catholicism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Enimil Ashon (April 23, 2021). "Enimil Ashon: Wikipedia's insult of the black race". Joy Online. Retrieved April 24, 2021. Go to Google. Search for, 'Lazarus and the rich man. The search takes you to Wikipedia. ... It is shameful, were it not so wicked. Wikipedia must pull down this carricaturization of the African.

Archives

Archive 1

Media mention

I mean, yeah, they mentioned this article, but the piece is so poorly researched that they seem to think a "Wikipedia cartoonist" crated the image in the infobox, despite the fact that it says right there that the image came from Meister des Codex Aureus Epternacensis, and that information has been there with the image for at least fourteen years. Yet they seem to lay all the blame for the "black devil" on Wikipedia. Not exactly top-tier journalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the best WP-coverage I've seen, but I'm not sure they meant "Wikipedia cartoonist" literally (they may have), I thought it was more of a "historical context be damned, these things must not be shown in public, at least not in such a defining place." Fwiw, I don't see it in the google panel. I'm somewhat inclusionist on these (this article has been mentioned-templates), I find this one an interesting perspective. And if IP:s start to remove the LEADIMAGE, we have a hint on why. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being perfectly honest I'm kind of hoping the author is watching this talk page and will amend her piece to align with objective reality. It's a historical artifact, not a "Wikipedia cartoon". Wikipedia is here to present information, not to interpret it, and certainly not to censor it. Whether it should be the lead image in the infobox is a discussion that could be had if it is felt there is a need, but it is clearly captioned as having come from an ancient manuscript, so it's hard to say how anyone could not see it for what it is. This is just lazy sensationalist journalism, uninformed opinions disguised as reporting. Hardly an uncommon issue in this day and age, but annoying nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could happen. Perhaps the author will try editing WP and then write a "Wikipedia's political science coverage is biased. I tried to fix it" story. Maybe not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speak of the IP:s. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the WP:LEADIMAGE?

Per above. If so, what should we change it to? Possible candidates at Category:Paintings of Lazarus and Dives. The current one is really old (I generally like that in articles like this), and illustrates several parts of the story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It is good summary of the parable. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This was 6 months ago. The caption gives the date, almost 1,000 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lost background paragraph

I have responded to a large comment in support of recent reverts on my talk page. For this article, only this is relevant:

There is one revert I definitely disagree with [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rich_man_and_Lazarus&diff=prev&oldid=1064767718}, in which you revert what you call "you dropped an entire paragraph with background information from Josephus" - well, that paragraph actually gave pretty standard information not specific to Josephus (especially not with the AD years). That "background info" paragraph was out of place as the section was about presenting these different identifications, not separately giving background information about Caiaphas, Pilate and Gratus. Hence, including the years in which Caiaphas was High Priest in brackets was actually enough.

As for the reference you complain about: the extra paragraph was introduced by "according to Josephus" but actually sourced to "Metzger & Coogan Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993. p 97". That page does include the information I included into the other paragraph. I never claimed Metzger was Cox or that Josephus was Cox. In fact, the entire ref for Caiaphas's term could also be removed entirely as it is common knowledge. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the article back?

An editor, now blocked indefinitely, recently moved this article from Rich man and Lazarus to The story of the Rich man and Lazarus.

It's not obviously good per WP:THE and Rich, but I haven't actually tried to check what the WP:COMMONNAME is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move it back, I say. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think we need an adming since there'll be a redirect in the way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but first, just to be thorough, I thought I'd throw out "Parable of rich man and Lazarus" a la Parable of the Good Samaritan, also from the book of Luke. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we go with that version it should be "Parable of the rich man and Lazarus".

Scrolling through the titles/snippets here [1] both are fine, just "Rich man and Lazarus" may be a little more common, but neither is wrong, and with parable it's more obvious what the article is about. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, indeed might prefer it. Most of Category:Parables of Jesus are titled this way. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not! It has to be "Parable of the rich man and Lazarus". ;-) I don't really have a preference, but fwiw, I vote for that one too, either is improvement on the current. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Story" is more neutral. There has been some debate (mentioned, but not particularly well covered in the article) as to whether the story is about real people. My personal preference is for "Rich man and Lazarus". St Anselm (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically have two choices here: express my opinion, or do the page move. It seems the old title was stable for a long time, and the user who moved it without discussion is blocked for both socking and general incompetence, so I'll just move it back. That doesn't prevent anyone from opening a WP:RM on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-cult sections

I did some trimming, may do more. Each item should have a decent secondary WP:RS stating "This whatever was whatevered by Rich man and Lazarus". Anything else is out of WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]