Talk:Book of Micah

This article is so subjective, religious, and POV-pushing that it's almost unreadable. Wikipedia is not a platform for religious proselytizing. It needs heavy revision. Inoculatedcities 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

You don't offer any examples. Considering the subject matter is a religious one, it is hard to see how you can write anything about the individual referenced without it having a significant element of religion. As far as "proselytizing", I totally disagree. The article does not make any argument for belief, it is just recounting the stories which are associated with the biblical figure.

If you have a specific issue with some facts in the article, the correct approach is to edit it and let other editors accept or deny your edits, not just complain about it in the discussion page with some vague comments about the article being "religious" and "POV" pushing.

At the least, you need to give some specific examples of what POV it is pushing. I do not see any POV being pushed -- it just recounts the stories of the biblical figure Micah, albeit at length. Unreadable? Hmm. The article has already been rated by other editors as having a B-class rating, which isn't bad and is above average for Wikipedia articles. Without a better description of your problems with the article, your comments come across as biased against religious subjects [User:Izaakb|Izaakb]] 01:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the OP. The article is written as if the details listed are facts rather than religious theory. This is done without reference to outside sources (beyond the religious tracts themselves). What evidence exists that Micah really existed? Are there any remaining original copies of this book dated to approximately the original time? Are there other references to the historical characters referenced by the book (the various rulers for instance) that would help to indicate the book was written by someone who lived through the times in question? These are the critical thinking sorts of questions that OP may have in his head that he hasn't iterated here.Jplflyer 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Reply

I have followed every reference given in this section, and cannot seem to find where the quoted summaries of the text are coming from. I searched for other versions on the web also, but find none. Especially of questionable reduction is the quote for 4:1, "The peoples shall gaze on [The Mount of the Lord’s House] with joy,". This is in contrast to the KJV which states, "But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it." Many other versions have similar language. Even if there is a version with "gaze with joy", the more substantial pieces are not included here. Additionally, it is not appropriate to render here a translation or meaning without a supporting citation. This being just one example, the whole section is reduced in like manner. It would seem that the article almost verbatim is now found on many, many other sites; most seem to reference this Wiki, others apparently skipping attribution, leading to the chicken vs. egg paradox. Duane Phillips (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

I've removed the section, as it is just an unsourced/OR/NS essay. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Reply

This isn't a citation issue. It's just that there's no consensus. Any of the following numbers (and doubtless other permutations) can be argued for:

4 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve
8 - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (the traditional Jewish position)
10 - Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve
15 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
17 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (the traditional Protestant position)
18 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch (including the Epistle of Jeremiah), Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (including Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (the traditional Roman Catholic position)
19 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (including Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (the traditional Eastern Orthodox position)
19 - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
20 - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Susana, Daniel (including Bel and the Dragon), Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
21 - Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

There seems little point in picking 15 as some sort of compromise number, following the Christian classification of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings as history rather than prophecy, the Jewish classification of Lamentations and Daniel as writings rather than prophecy, the Christian division of the twelve minor prophets, and the Jewish/Protestant rejection of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah (and potentially Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, if one considers those to be books too). Indeed it looks all too original. So I'm going to edit the number out. oxyphenBUTAZONE U T 11:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Reply

Although the Composition section may seem to use multiple sources, source numbers #23, #24, #25 and #26 all refer to the same source, meaning only the first sentence is confirmed by another source. Could we get additional sources on this so we know this is the consensus on the composition of the book, rather than just what one scholar thinks? VDZ (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Micah. 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/20050204033155/http://www.anova.org:80/sev/htm/hb/33_micah.htm to http://www.anova.org/sev/htm/hb/33_micah.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck }}).

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) 23:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC) Reply

The lead says the book has three major divisions, chapters 1–2, 3–5 and 6–7. The structure section refers to "three roughly equal parts", identifying chapters 4-5 and 6-7 as the latter of these, implying chapters 1-3 form the first part. As these two points are inconsistent, which is the best way to resolve this discrepancy? BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Reply