Talk:Jonathan Eybeschutz

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Untitled[edit]

Hi there 82.80.46.135

The changes you have made here are somewhat controversial - especially the claim of baptism. Please site sources (other than an allusion to "reliable German manuscripts from that period"). Fintor 07:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there 88.152.129.112

The statements re: Bicur Satan are very explicit - there should be records of such pronouncements. Please cite sources.

Fintor 08:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbatean Works[edit]

"It is claimed that he also published numerous Shabbatian works anonymously."

Claimed by whom? Please cite a source. --Kotzker 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It includes also the letters of recommendation which he had received from leading rabbis who came to his defense who were obviously unaware of Eybeschutz's dual life at the time."

Huh? Without any sources, this kind of stuff is nothing but repulsive. I'm removing it, till a source is given. 162.129.251.22 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ever going to get sources for the Sabbatean stuff? Without them, we should take it out. MikeR613 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the sources, but at least there are sources now. Are there any online links to this kind of information? I've made a couple of minor changes, mostly grammar, and changed the word "proved" to "claims". Maybe even "claims to prove" would be okay. More is, I think, unjustified, unless someone is prepared to show that this has become the consensus of all scholars in the field. MikeR613 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um, just having sources isn't really useful unless you know that the ones you provided are "the consensus of all the scholars in the field." If you know who those scholars are, you should cite their work. If you don't, you don't know the value of what you cited.

96.255.124.231 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

luchot edut[edit]

This work is available online at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/46743 96.255.124.231 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

'Eybeschütz' is the most prevalent form in English-language sources, as one can see with a Google Books search. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually Abschutz is how we spell it in English... he's my ancestor 67.83.165.148 (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]