Talk:Cantonist

message: The correct translation of Herzen's quatation would be "Their officer complained that one third had already died" ("Беда да и только, треть осталась на дороге" -- "Былое и думы", My Past and Thoughts, end of Chapter 13). Not "two thirds" as in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.80.143 (talk • contribs) 
: You are correct. This is now fixed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistranslation

message: Cantonists' exploits are extwncively doc'ed in YPS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 11:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsar's watch

message: Is there a proof for this: "(the unconverted could not be promoted above the rank of lieutenant, though there were some exceptions, in which the unconverted reached the rank of colonel)." This contradicts . Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the unconverted reached the rank of colonel

message: :Galassi deleted my edit, because, as s/he claims, Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson is an unreliable source. Please elaborate, as I have other info. to post that is historically relevant based on this source. Yehoishophot Oliver 13:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a tremendous quantity of lacrimose mythology surrounding cantonism. Most of it just doesn't hold water. I have studied this ussue with Petrovsky who wrote the only reliable book on the subj.Galassi 13:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevertheless, a written source by a recognised scholar describing historical events is legit. according to wiki rules, no? Yehoishophot Oliver 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with Schn. quote is that it is simply mythopoietic. It is generally wise to stick to secular historians, for sobriety's sake.Galassi 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for a link to a wiki rules page to justify your specific rejection. There is no rule on wiki that religious historians may not be quoted, AFAIK, and Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson was one. And are you saying you will reject all quotes, or only those you deem "mythopoietic" (sic)? Yehoishophot Oliver 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If there is a published criticism of Schn., you may quote Shn. with corresponding comment, otherwise what is your reason to dismiss it as "mytho"? `'mikka 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure Schn. would merit published crit.Galassi 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone remotely familiar with his works knows that he took great pains to transmit huge amounts of historically priceless information, as recorded in his letters (Igros Kodesh) and talks (Sefer haSichos), quoting only those he felt to be reliable sources. He may not have been secular (which is apparently for some people a guarantee of legitimacy and objectivity), but he definitely qualifies as a historian. Do we have a consensus here? Yehoishophot Oliver 01:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. General WP policies apply: verifiability, reliable source, no orig. research, etc. If there are notable (not WP:UNDUE) alternative opinions from reliable sources, mention them as well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You agree with me, or Galassi? I have not seen that Schneerson's works violate the policies you mention. Yehoishophot Oliver 02:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I agree with. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not familiar with Schneerson's work, but the paragraph cited is patent nonsense.Galassi 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understandidng is that Sch. is a theologian, i.e. propagandist by definition, and NPOV is not expected from him, based on common sense. Hassidic mythology surrounding cantonism created many difficulties in getting a realistic pictire of cantonism. There are very few sources that are really reliable, but there are memoirs of cantonists themselves, like Viktor Nikitin (converted), who became an Inpector General of Penitentiaries. Galassi 10:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Galassi, please point us to the policy you are basing on. BTW, converted Jews often engaged in persecution of their former coreligionists, so they are hardly a neutral source. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unreliable source?

message: Herzl Yankl Tsam seems notable enough to deserve an article. According to Zvi Gitelman, published by Indiana UP: "Tsam appears to have been the only Jewish officer in the Tsarist army in the nineteenth century." I've changed the caption correspondingly. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another reliable source

message: *Евреи в русской армии: 1827 - 1914
*Петровский-Штерн Й.
*год издания — 2003, кол-во страниц — 556, ISBN — 5-86793-202-8, тираж — 5000, язык — русский, тип обложки — твёрд. 7Б, масса книги — 660 гр., *издательство — НЛО
*цена:1000.00 руб	
*Формат 60x90 1/16. Бумага офсетная №1. Офсетная печать
Эта книга - о встрече традиционной еврейской общины и русской армии, о социально-политических и духовных обстоятельствах этой встречи, а также о её последствиях. Автор прослеживает историю взаимоотношений военного ведомства с евреями России и Царства Польского от первого еврейского рекрутского набора 1827 г. вплоть до начала Первой мировой войны. Исследователь рассматривает военную и национальную проблематику в широком социокультурном контексте: литературные образы еврейских солдат в русской армии, отношение военных министров и полковых командиров к этническим меньшинствам, быт воспитанников в кантонистских батальонах, думские дебаты и военные баталии. В книге использован богатейший документальный материал из российских и зарубежных архивов.
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ
От автора	7
Тема и метод	9
 
*Глава I. ЕВРЕИ РОССИИ И РУССКАЯ АРМИЯ НАКАНУНЕ
И ПОСЛЕ ПРОВЕДЕНИЯ РЕКРУТЧИНЫ	19
Евреи России накануне призыва 1827 года	22
Рекрутчина: рождение замысла	31
Русская армия накануне призыва 1827 года	34
Община против рекрутчины	37
Рекрутский Устав	43
Рекрутчина в переводе на еврейский	46
Реакция на Устав	50
Николаевские наборы и кагалы	53
Община - общество - армия: новые веяния	59
Результаты встречи	66
Выводы	69
 
*Глава II. ОБЩИНА В АРМИИ	71
«Обряды веры»	74
Закон и праксис	79
Раввины-капелланы	82
Солдатские молельни	86
Солдатские общины	90
Общества еврейского самоуправления	93
Еврейское образование солдатских детей	105
Выводы	109
 
*Глава III. МАЛЕНЬКИЕ СОЛДАТИКИ ВЕЛИКОЙ ИМПЕРИИ:
СУДЬБА ЕВРЕЙСКИХ КАНТОНИСТОВ	111
Миссионерский замысел	116
Миссионерская компания и её результаты	118
Кантонисты из евреев среди товарищей по оружию	138
Религиозный бунт в войсках	149
Конец института военных кантонистов	164
Результат кантонистского эксперимента	167
 
*Глава IV. БЕСПОЛЕЗНЫЙ СОЛДАТ: ЕВРЕЙСКИЕ НИЖНИЕ
ЧИНЫ, ВОЕННАЯ РЕФОРМА И АРМЕЙСКАЯ СТАТИСТИКА	173
Военная реформа и устав всесословной воинской повинности	176
Военная статистика	182
Уклонение от службы: коллективное преступление русских евреев	186
Профессиональное распределение еврейских солдат	196
Физические данные еврейского солдата	204
Еврейские деньги и солдатский быт	209
Котёл кошерный и котёл ротный	213
Линия поведения еврейского солдата	217
Семейное положение	220
Преступность среди нижних чинов - евреев	224
Выводы	237
 
*Глава V. ДИЛЕММА 1905 ГОДА: МЕЖДУ АРМИЕЙ И РЕВОЛЮЦИЕЙ	239
Северо-западные военные округа: Бунд и армия	244
Киевский военный округ: военные комитеты социалистов-революционеров (СР)	261
Петербургский военный округ: военные комитеты СД	268
Беспартийный мятеж	278
Меж двух огней	287
Выводы	290
 
*Глава VI. ПРАГМАТИКИ И ПОЛИТИКИ: ЕВРЕЙСКИЙ ВОПРОС,
ВОЕННОЕ МИНИСТЕРСТВО И РУССКАЯ УЛЬТРАПРАВАЯ	295
Круг чтения военной бюрократии: три источника	300
Интендантский департамент против товарищества Грегера, Горвица и Когана	311
«Черта осёдлости» в армии и её создатель	319
Политики против прагматиков	324
Слово и дело	332
«Союз русского народа» в армии	336
Вокруг нового Устава 1912 года	344
Попытка окончательного решения	353
Выводы	354
 
*Глава VII. ПРОИСХОЖДЕНИЕ ЛЕГЕНДЫ: ОБРАЗ ЕВРЕЙСКОГО
СОЛДАТА В РУССКОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЕ	357
Философ-просветитель в солдатской шинели	361
Жертва маскильской критики	370
Крест шею не тянет	377
Ловчики из Гете	384
Врачу, исцелися сам	387
О сопротивлении злу искусством	392
Память и стиль	396
Одиссей среди кентавров	399
Выводы	409
 
*ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ	413
 
*Комментарии	422
*Список сокращений	507
*Краткий указатель источников и литературы	508
*Предметный указатель	531
*Географический указатель	536
*Именной указатель	541
*Указатель упомянутых соединений и полков русской армии	550 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galassi (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Petrovsky-Stern

message: I have removed the 1949 Schneerson quote. It has no basis in reality, according to professional historians........Galassi 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced. You can put in a line about their disagreement alongside the Schneerson piece (assuming they do disagree). Shlomke 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was published in 2003, see preceding talksection. I's have to revert your edit.Galassi 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You pasted a bunch of Russian without any explanation in the preceding talk section. Is this book written in english? Shlomke 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, as a dissertation at Brandeis. Then as book in Russian, and later this year as a book in English.Are you a habadnik?Galassi 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So when you point to page 92-96 where YPS discuses schneersohn, is this available in English, and if so, whats the name of the publication? Shlomke 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. All dissertations are available from UMI, but you have to pay for them. Same name.Galassi 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that instead of trying to present schneerson as a undocumented claim, you put in a line saying that YPS was unable to find any primary source for it. Also keep in mind that if someone was operating "underground", there may have not been as much evidence about it, compared to the image that the tzar would have liked to make it look. Shlomke 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is NO JEWISH primary source that mentions the alleged "opposition" until Schn. makes the claim in 1949. Let us know if you find anything tangible.Galassi 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Underground opposition

message: As an alternative to blocking or topic-banning both editors (Galassi and Debresser) involved in the long slow revert-war over those source taggings, I am taking out the whole passage about Schneerson, which to my mind has something rather coatrack-ish and is only of limited relevance to the overall topic anyway. This just as an interim stopgap solution. Feel free to reinsert if you think there's consensus for it, but be warned that any further edit-warring over it will then be met with sanctions (under the "Digwuren" discretionary sanctions rules)
Both Debresser and, to a lesser extent, Galassi are warned against abusing the  tag. To Debresser, about tagging the Petrovski-Shtern source: there seems to be no serious argument disputing the status of that book as technically a "reliable source" in the sense of WP:V. There is also no argument disputing that the statements ascribed to P.-Sh. were correctly summarised and that P.-Sh. actually claimed what our article said he claimed. These claims were also correctly framed and attributed to P.-Sh.'s as his opinions, rather than being stated as simple facts in the article. Therefore, there is nothing problematic here. The only issue you seem to have with this source is that you as an editor happen to disagree with it; this, however, is utterly irrelevant, since Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". Your edit-warring over this tag was disruptive and a breach of the principles of WP:V. – To Galassi and his attempt at tagging the Schneerson book with that "credibility" tag: this is patently unnecessary, since the doubts about the factual correctness of the book were already covered in the text itself, by citing P.-Sh. If the article itself describes these doubts, then of course an additional tagging is redundant. 
Links to this edit war will be filed as evidence in the current Arbcom case to which Debresser is a party. Debresser is advised he should be prepared to see the arbitrators taking a rather dim view of this incident. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with the removal (should have been done long ago), and have actually added this dispute to the Arbcom case in question a few days ago.Galassi (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem with the removal. Please notice that I posted on Galassi's talk page proposing to ask a third party. Galassi has not replied to that. Instead he insisted on continuing this edit war. I am sure any admin reviewing this incident is sure to take a dim view of that as well. That is even without addressing the point itself, that adding a verify credibility tag has been discussed on this talk page in the section above, and an uninvolved third paarty has agreed it should stay. Feel free to ignore all of this and stick to your dim views of me, but I have done my best to work it out with an uncooperative and stuborn editor who has actually said in an edit summary in one of his reverts that "a haredi source is not scholarly, and cannot be reliable". Now I would really like to hear what your opinion is about that! Debresser (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are hassidic sources subject to academic peer review?-Galassi (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  Writings by a religious authority, about the history of his own religious movement and his own direct ancestor and predecessor, evidently fall outside the system of scholarly method and academic review that makes sources "reliable" in our sense. Since the writer's perspective is naturally governed by his own religious agenda rather than by academic methodological rigour, he is under no expectation of being unbiased or disinterested with regard to his subject, and his writings are not vetted by an independent critical review process, any subjective "reliability" ascribed to such writings depends purely on one's religious trust in the writer's personal authority. Such sources can only ever serve as "primary sources" for the writer's own opinions, never as an objective source about anything outside that subjective domain. In this, they have the same status as any self-published autobiographic statements by an article's subject. Such writings are never on a par with academic works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just one small question. Were you aware of the three things I mentioned (1. my proposal on Galassi's talk page to ask for a third opinion 2. the conclusion of the section above 3. this provocative edit summary) when you posted here and on the ArbCom page? "Yes" or "no" will do. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  (1): yes, though since you continued reverting at the same time, it doesn't really help you much. (2): yes, but since you didn't actually document who you asked and what they said, I had no way of assessing that; besides, one random third party's opinion, especially a party presumably chosen by you, is just that, and carries no particular authority over your own and that of your opponent; (3): I'd seen it. The statement as worded would of course be offensive if understood in the sense of "no source written by a person who is an adherent of X can ever be reliable", but in the context I obviously understood it to refer to the situation here, i.e. in the sense of "a source written as part of the religious discourse of Haredi Judaism". That's a different thing, and in that sense the statement is quite correct, as I've just argued above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are invited to read that specific work for yourself. I had never done so before myself. After reading it, you'll better appreciate the absurdness in a professor doubting an incredibly detailed historic account of events without any evidence whatsoever, as you can see for yourself in the section above. Mind you, I have no problem with the removal of this paragraph. I do have a problem with a professor being believed by value of his credentials only when his is doing such a thing. Ascribing that to my POV was a little hasty. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have filed this last edit of yours at the Arbcom case too. This is about the closest I have ever seen an editor come to openly abrogating WP:V. I am now quite convinced you must be permanently topic-banned from this whole area. You are evidently unable to edit within the framework of Wikipedia's policies in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you are wrong about this. If a source brings no evidence or arguments for its statements, there is no reason not to tag it. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text:  Another thing is that if I am misinterpreting Wikipedia policy in this, why not just explain it to me? Show me where it says that I am wrong and you are right. I find your recommendation to topic-ban me rather overkill. Debresser (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find your display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tiresome, and the typical signs of a disruptive stance to editing. WP:V is pretty self-explanatory. If you haven't grasped it by now, chances are you never will. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that is your level of patience with editors, I would like to advise you to give up your adminship. We on Wikipedia are used to higher standards of interaction with other editors from our admins. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schneerson paragraph 

message: A note to Debresser: there was no requirement to supply children into service. It was left to entirely to qahals to decide who goes into service, and they were given the discretion to supply children.--Galassi (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jews were required to provide conscripts. That is correct. These could be from 12-25 years of age, while for others that was 18-25. That is no reason to say they were "allowed" to provide conscripts from 18-25. It still is a requirement. And who is to say it is better from age 12 than from age 18? Perhaps the opposite is true. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  At most you could specify and say that the it was left to the discretion of the qahal to choose from which ages to fulfill this requirement. But is remains a requirement. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

text:  I rephrased it. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Requirement"

message: In this edit, some information was removed from the "Statistics" section, as containing information from the wrong century. According to this article, there were cantonists in the 19th century also, so I fail to understand why this is the "wrong century". I will restore this for now, being that it is sourced information from a relevant source, but will not object to good faith removal of the statement, if it turns out I misunderstand something here. Debresser (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WRONG CENTURY referred to Polish cantonists, these only appear after 1831.--Galassi (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. Thank you. So that was in reference to the first section. That leaves the question, why you removed information from the "Statistics" section? Debresser (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Collateral damage.--Galassi (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

text: They were a minority in the Empire in general and its military in particular. The cantonists ceased to exist in 1857.--Galassi (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

text: * You have the right to your own opinion of course, even though your opinion is not what I read. The Poles were also "a minority" in the German Reich after September 1939 (in general) and the Silesian Poles in its military in particular... Anyhow, the militarized "orphanages" known as the cantonist schools ceased to exist formally by the decree of 1857 (on paper, in mid 19th century), but the cantonists didn't. They were compelled to serve in the army for up to 25 years. Meanwhile, the conscriptions to other schools continued after 1857, as the Tsarist military schools continued to operate for the remainder of the 19th century... The Jewish children in Poland were still being kidnapped in Cossacks raids on synagogues as of 1865, according to literature. Poeticbent talk 03:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

text: That sounds like a tall tale. The term of conscription in 1857 was no longer 25, but 10 years. As to "Cossacks raids on synagogues as of 1865": that's fit for WP:REDFLAG. Jewish children weren't useful to (which particular brand?) cossacks in 1865. Ukrainian cossacks were no longer in existence and Russian cossacks avoided Jews like plague. Fortunately we rely on scholarly texts, and not literature. And we have an exhaustive Petrovsky-Shtern book on the subject of cantonism.--Galassi (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

text: If you can come up with a reliable and verifiable scholarly source apropos.--Galassi (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong century 

message: The last source in the bibliography traces cantonists to 1917.  The article cuts off in the middle of the 1850s.  This article needs to be doubled to deal with changes after Alexander.  It is also important to notice that cantonists played an important role in the Mendel Beilis trial of 1913.  One witness had the right of residence anywhere as a cantonist who had served in 1905, and the Kiev government deliberately created a paper snafu that had a role in the trial.  Another cantonist became a member of the Russian Church hierarchy and was drafted to support the ritual murder charge in court since everybody else in the church refused.  Read A.S. Tager on the ldn-knigi site.  If you don't know Russian, say so. I'm translating the Beilis transcript now, that's how I know these things, and I can translate Tager next year once I recover.
108.56.212.179 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cantonist. 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/20070927001340/http://www.jewish-history.com/cantons.htm to http://www.jewish-history.com/cantons.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/058/649.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/058/650.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Although no way identical nor equivalents, I feel there are some parallels in that all three are instances of Russian armed forced providing military education to youths. So I think they should be added to the See also.
79.68.142.24 (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallels with Suvorov and Nakhimov schools