Talk:Cantonist

Mistranslation

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)

Tsar's watch

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

the unconverted reached the rank of colonel

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 [1]. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are at least 8 full officers that were recorded, mainly from the banking families.Galassi 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources? In any case, we need to show that this was extreme rarity. Intentionally or not, your caption implies that Tsam's case was rather typical. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Petrovsky is the source.Galassi 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually the limit was УНТЕР-ОФИЦЕР, i.e. staff-sergeant.Galassi 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Do you see a problem with saying that a handful out of tens of thousands is a rarity? If not, why do you keep removing this word? To demonstrate good faith, I won't revert you right away and will give you a chance to provide a proof about 8 exceptions that you insist on inserting - the other sources say that there was only one. If there is an evidence that they were from the rich families and bribed their way up, let's say so. And for the n-th time, please WP:CITE your sources. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • No problems with RARITY. All info derives from YPS.Galassi 10:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Page number please and quote if possible, per WP:CITE. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
              • My copy is lent to Julian Kytasty until Sept.....Galassi 11:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

unreliable source?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm not sure Schn. would merit published crit.Galassi 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

That's what I agree with. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Schneerson's work, but the paragraph cited is patent nonsense.Galassi 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not familiar with his work, it's unfair of you to dismiss it as an unfair source. In any case, I owe an apology. I see that that citation was not in fact from the author, but from an explanatory note of the translator. In any case, I'm waiting for explanation for why the source (not the content of the specific quote) is inherently unreliable, based on wiki rules. If no one is forthcoming, then I will post the info. I have in this work concerning the numerous activities of the Shneersons and their followers in countering the cantonist edict. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

He did write on theology, but that's irrelevant. He made a point of transmitting a great deal of history with accuracy, and if you don't know that, it only shows that you haven't studied his works. It's absurd to suggest that someone who writes on theology can't write on history, especially history that his great-grandfather Menachem Mendel Schneersohn was directly involved in (do you deny that?), and he had access to records and first-hand accounts from witnesses. Yehoishophot Oliver 11:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Nikitin was sympathetic to the unconverted.Galassi 11:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, you are missing the point entirely. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No source for precluding this source was forthcoming, so I've posted something from it. This is a published source from someone who transmitted a vast amount of historical information, and declared the importance of always transmitting a story accurately, and never embellishing it. And if this info. is not found in other sources, there's a simple explanation: this work was done under a veil of strict secrecy. Yehoishophot Oliver 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

lachrymose mythology

This seems disparaging. Shall we say that often it relied on facts as well? Obviously the policy caused a lot of suffering. Let's try to stick to NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a nice way of saying that a lot of lit on the subj. is simply untrue. It was the military, so it was nasty by definition. The Jews however were as miserable as everyone else, and the cantonist life was not without rewards. Some cantonists did very well in life.Galassi 20:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the point you keep trying to make. Others (including reliable sources) tend to think that putting 8-year-olds on a practical death march with peace-time casualty rate of more that 33% was not such a blessing. It was customary to mourn the conscript as a dead person in the Jewish communities, which often was not too far from the truth. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You should get the Russian edition of YPS (available on ozone.ru) or wait for the expanded StanfordUP tome (being printed).

There were no major wars from 1827 to the Crimean. So the survival rate was "optimistic".Galassi 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. There is "lachrymose mythology" around every factual human tragedy, take Trail of Tears or Gulag. Do you have an evidence that there is something particularly special about this one? Pointing us to a yet unprinted "excellent" book (in creating of which you apparently participated and are trying to promote here) is not very helpful. See WP:V, WP:CITE. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is published, as a dissertation in English, as a book in Russian, and shortly as a book in English. I did not participate in its creation, but I have known YPS for 35 years.

There are a lot unfounded myths, such as drowning in front of the Tsar, mass baptisms in rivers, coersion by torture etc., etc.Galassi 22:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think it's in the human nature to surround every tragedy with myths. Is there an evidence of something special about this one, warranting this being mentioned in an encyclopedia?

Also, I realize that it is a tragedy for a Catholic Christian to be forced to convert to Orthodox Christianity, but I find your claim "The Jews however were as miserable as everyone else" to be unfair if not outright offensive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, they had the pressure to convert, and maltreatment occurred from time to time, naturally. That State has not been known for sensitivity.

However NO ONE was happy in cantonist schools.Galassi 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No one claimed that it was a happy place. You are making a strawman argument. Please reread what I said. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ОК. The armny was not initially anti-semitic (it has become later, by 1900). Aside ofrom pressures to convert (and there were excesses, complaints, investigations, policy changes+confusion of implementation) all cantonists were treated more or less equally. Cantonism was NOT a penitentiary.Galassi 10:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not separating the army from the policies it was used/abused to implement. If you think that putting 8-year-old Jewish boys on death marches, eliminating their Jewish identity in many ways from forced conversion to forbidding kashrut, etc. is not antisemitic, you lost any credibility with me. Confusion is not an excuse. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't put too much value in kashrut, not being observantm but that gives me a modicum of neutrality. There is no proof that death marches were the SOP, but some were inevitable, in the pre-railroad era.Galassi 11:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about your (or mine) personality or convictions. Other than your POV, you have failed to present any evidence that mentioning "lachrymose mythology" is warranted here. Sorry, I do not accept the logic that the absence of railroads somehow made death marches inevitable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid the loaded terms "death marches" here. No one was targetting to kill or otherwise make suffer these poor boys. You are reading with bias what you want from the quotation. In fact the officer quoted by Herzen feels bad for them: "Беда да и только", meaning, "what a pity". you should have read Nikolay Pomyalovsky, "Seminary Sketches" Очерки бурсы, about the miserable life of students in Orthodox religion, future priests, of the comparable age. You fail to acknowledge that the fate of Russian peasants was hardly better. You should have read more of contemporary literature, and you would probably understand why Bolsheviks succeeded: it was no because they were nasty efficient villains: it was the life in Russia was absolutely miserable for 95% of population. `'mikka 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, I shouldn't have used loaded terminology. I have read those, although many years ago. Unless the clause of "lachrymose mythology" is added to articles describing the fate of Russian peasants, Bursaks, etc., etc., I don't see a particular reason for it in this article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another reliable source

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)

• Gitelman is all wrong, both on Tsam and the #. Another full officer was a son of baron Ginzburg. Galassi 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, he bought his commission, but nonetheless....Lute88 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Galassi, you have to provide a source that "Gitelman was all wrong". Wikipedia works by sources. Shlomke 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Galassi is quite correct. The Russian edition of "Drafted into Modernity" talks about Tsam at length. I am anxious for the English version, which I believe would be expanded from the Russan one.

And what the hell did Gitelman mean by "full captain"? Anyway the rank of штабс-капитан was preceded by прапорщик, аnother full officer rank. Lute88 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Petrovsky-Stern

• 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).

Underground opposition

I have removed the 1949 Schneerson quote. It has no basis in reality, according to professional historians........Galassi 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Are these based on a book that has not yet been published? Shlomke 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was published in 2003, see preceding talksection. I's have to revert your edit.Galassi 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes. All dissertations are available from UMI, but you have to pay for them. Same name.Galassi 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern on Rabbi Schneersohn

Galassi, you keep putting in information which is not at all in the source (at least the the Enlish version which is what we should use here). I don't see anywhere on the two pages Petrovsky discuses the Chabad work the information you keep putting in. Yet you keep claiming it's "per source". This seems to be your own original research. Forthermore, you are removing information that is sourced claiming it's BS, when in fact this is what is writen in footnote 45. I am going to have to revert you again. Please explain you edits in the future. Shlomke (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. This is my wikirephrasing of YPS, who is giving Sch. a scholarly lip-service. The Russian version has stronger words apropos.Galassi (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NONENG states: English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that readers can easily verify the content of the article. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quotation, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. It this case we have an English book from the same author, on the same subject, so there's no question that we follow that source, which again, has nothing you are putting in and does contain words you are taking out. Shlomke (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Schn. book is written for the purpose of giving chabad the credit for someone else's work. It is unreliable, misleading and tendentious, and doesn't merit any inclusion whatsoever in this article. The fact that it is mentioned is a veritable miracle.Galassi (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"No other source corroborates the existence of a Society of the Resurrected, too modern a title for early nineteenth-century Judaism. Nor does this Society ever appear in references to self-governing Jewish institutions. Among some 350 extant East European minute books of the self-governing societies, there is no allusion to any such organization. Furthermore, the claim that Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim were exclusively responsible for organizing self-governing societies of Jewish conscripts is misleading. While such societies existed in the army, it was not necessarily under the auspices of the Hasidim."Galassi (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"...An unreliable source claims that the first institution to provide relief for Jewish soldiers was established as the result of a Chabad-Lubavitch initiative. According to this account, Rabbi Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, the leader of..."Galassi (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I know both English and Russian. So I would be greatfull if both parties could copy their sources here, before making further edits. Debresser (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple solution to our problem, on first glance, would be to include both sources, both named. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO Sch. does not merit inclusion. Here's the relevant part from the YPS book in Russian:

"цитируемый нами источник изрядно искажает и безусловно модернизирует факты. Закон о рекрутчине касался всех евреев России, далеко не только детей — будущих кантонистов. "Общество воскрешения из мертвых" как форма еврейского самоуправления не упоминается ни в одном из известных нам источников по еврейской социальной истории в целом и по истории еврейского самоуправления в частности. Среди сотен записных книг (пинкасим) восточноевропейских еврейских обществ последних трех столетий нет ни намека на подобный социальный институт. Исключительный приоритет хабад-любавичских хасидов в организации добровольных обществ для еврейских солдат также следует считать преувеличением, и тем более им является свойственная XX, а не XIX в. форма подпольной религиозной работы. Тем не менее, даже из такого малонадежного источника следует, что в армии существовали те или иные формы еврейского самоуправления."Galassi (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think Shneersohn should be trusted when we are talking about what no doubt was an internal and secret society. After all, he is a descendant of those who were likely to be involved in the issue. Both sources should be mentioned, both Schneersohn, and the source doubting him. That way we avoid any POV. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to trust Sch. where historiogrphy does't unequivocally. His committee is no more than a rumor, until a tangible primary source is produced. Galassi (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so count me with those who disagree with you. I think that Schneersohn was an expert in the field, and likely to have information not available to others. May I also point out that you should not remove sourced information from articles. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source has an additional problem. It can not prove the claim to be untrue. It brings no arguments, apart from saying that this looks to him like a modernisation. I find this very unscientifical. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Schn. as an expert constitutes OR. You also insufficiently well versed in Russian to conclude the above.Galassi (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this personally insulting. Please know that I have made official translations for the Russian police. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re reliability of Tz.Tz. here's another relevant paragraph: "Опубликованная на иврите и по-английски в 1950-х гг., в разгар возрождения американского хасидизма, книга "The Tzemach Tzedek and the Haskala Movement in Russia", написанная главой движения ХАБАД Йосэфом Ицхаком Шнеерсоном, представляла ХАБАД едва ли единственным еврейским религиозным движением, поддержавшим российское еврейство в страшные годы рекрутчины, "мрачного времени" Николая I. Свидетельства этой книги слишком важны, чтобы оставить их без внимания, и слишком односторонни, чтобы принять их за исторически достоверные. Характерные для этой книги упоминания подпольной, тайной деятельности ХАБАДа — наряду с представлением автора о бесспорно доминирующем положении этой ветви хасидизма в русско-еврейской общине, скорей соответствуют реалиям 1920-х гг, а не XIX в. Во второй четверти девятнадцатого века ХАБАД в целом и его лидер, рабби Менахем Мендель Шнеерсон (Цемах Цедек), представляли собой не более чем одну из нескольких влиятельных и авторитетных групп русского еврейства. Но в 1950-е гг. ХАБАД пытался представить себя американскому еврейству в качестве единственного полномочного представителя ашкеназского еврейства Восточной Европы — отсюда и патерналистский тон книги, и не соответствующее исторической реальности выпячивание роли ХАБАДа в жизни русского еврейства."Galassi (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You add nothing new here. You just bring the same opinion as before, that's all. And that is precisely what I brought out in the text of the article. That there are two opinions. Please stop reverting sourced information and push one opinion. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That "opinion" is by the most important scholar in this field.

You must provide a RELIABLE source to anything contrary. Galassi (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You are sourly mistaken. I have added no information, and therefore have nothing to source. I have only reformulated the information of your POV source, to NPOV formulation. Now please stop reverting to the POV. And notice that you have been reverted by two people already. I would say it is you who is trying to push his POV source. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

After examining this source of yours further I have to say that although he is undoubtedly an expert in his field, he advances point of views which as he admits himself, are at odds with the points of view of the scientific community before him. All the more reason not to rely on him too much. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And, as said concisely above, professor whatever brings no good reasons to doubt Schneersohn. The mere lack of other sources about what was clearly a clandestine organisation, is no more than to be expected. And the attempt to discredit Schneerson and attribute ulterior motives to him is frankly pathetic. Which sums up to what I called before "bad science". Debresser (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find professor whatever's unwillingness to consider Schneersohn as a reliable source another sad example of scienctists' stuborn and unscientifically stupid unwillingness to consider Jewish sources on that very same Jewish history. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was asked to review this dispute. I do not read Russian, so I cannot evaluate the sources. However I can make two points. First, when there are two differing views of a matter the right solution for Wikipedia is usually to include them both. "Source X says ... while source Y says..." Second, I suggest the editors here try to find less confrontational approaches to editing. A good practicxe is to "write for the enemy", in other words, try to put yourselves "in the shoes" of the other editor and see if you can epxress their POV fairly. Lastly, you're both experienced editors and should know better than to be reverting each other. I think there may be at least one 3RR violation, and I suggest self-reverting the last edit to avoid a problem.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am content with the present text drawn up by Galassi, bringing both sources precisely as you (and I) suggested. If there were any 3RR edits, and may I add that I was not aware of them, I think we have worked it out now, and I for one do not intend to make an issue of them. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Shlomke and Debresser. The source Galassi quotes is merely one opinion, and a tenuous one at that, and the book by Rabbi YY Schneersohn is highly significant considering that he would have been privy to such secret information passed on from his predecessors--the ones who organized this society. Moreover, as mentioned, the lack of records of a top-secret organization is hardly conclusive proof of its non-existence. This is in addition to the fact that Rabbi Schneersohn (though not university-educated) was a Chassidic historian par excellence, having transmitted vasts amounts of Chassidic history in his writings and public talks, and thus his words on anything related to Chassidic history are certainly notable. So both sources should be included, as is standard. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If I understand the above discussion correctly, this Petrovsky-Stern character, whoever he is, doubts the account in Admor HaTzemach Tzedek uTnuas haHaskoloh because the term Chevra Techiyas Hameisim is somehow "too modern" for the 19th century and because this committee is not to be found in the minutes of the kehilos?!!! What stupid arguments. What great philological advance does he think occurred in the century between the events and RJIS's book, that would have made such a title more likely in the mid-20th century than in the mid-19th? And why would he even expect a criminal conspiracy, whose members faced execution for treason if caught, to be listed in the official records of the kehillos, especially since, as the article records, the kehillos were themselves complicit in sending these poor boys into slavery in the first place, and would surely inform on the chevra if they knew of its existence? RJIS's book is by definition a reliable source, and he was certainly in a better position than anybody else, including YPS, to know about this committee and its work; it is very likely that he had access to secret records of its work, and that he personally knew people who had been involved in it. YPS has nothing beyond the fact that he had never heard of it. I don't see why he's even mentioned, or why this is in "Literary references" rather than "Strains within the Jewish community", or even its own section "Rescue efforts". -- Zsero (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree I don't understand why this is under the "Literary references" section rather then the other sections Zsero mentions.

Thanks to all who commented here, I think the current version is pretty much fair and NPOV (aside from the piece tagged for a better source). Shlomke (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"This Petrovsky character" is a major historian with his own wikipedia entry. He is the foremost expert on the subject of this article. He is also observant (you should know what that means), but that doesn't cloud his scholarship. Galassi (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, he has his own WP entry; I'm so impressed. RJIS has his own WP entry too, you know. And YPS is "the foremost expert" only according to you. On the specific topic we're discussing here — the activities of the Tzemach Tzedek's resistance group — he's obviously no expert at all, since he admits to never having heard of it, and (at least as quoted by you) advances silly arguments against it's having existed. That makes him no expert at all on this aspect of the story, however much he may (or may not) know about the Russian side. Next you'll be telling us that Avrum Ehrlich is the world's foremost expert on Lubavitch, just because some university made him a professor. -- Zsero (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Erlikh's credentials seem to be impeccable. Feel free to add his opininion on Schn. and cantonists, if there is one in his works.Galassi (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

His credentials are fairly peccable, actually, but that's not the point. The point is that only someone who knows nothing about the subject would call him "the foremost expert" just because of his academic credentials and publishing history. And the same goes for your YPS; being published by a uni press, and having a WP article, do not in themselves make someone "the foremost expert" on anything. -- Zsero (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As Oscar Wilde had said: "...it takes a really fine nature to appreciate a friend's success."Galassi (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean, that you know YPS personally and therefore know he is the foremost expert on this subject? Shlomke (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Ehrlich's success being irritating to someone.Galassi (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Galassi has gone back to his reverts and insults. Another case of this and I'll have to post on wp:ani. In this specific case he brings a review of a book to source statements that are not treated in the review. Also he uses this same review to remove the verify credibility tag, which came to question the credibility of the book, not its factual existence. Debresser (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

YPS is published by the Cambridge University Press. And by "Новое литературное обозрение" in Russian. Both major scholarly publishers. What kind of additional "credibility check" do you require?Galassi (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not question his academic credentials. But as you see here in this section of the talkpage, I and others with me very much question the validity of his conclusions. Which is what the {{Verify credibility}} template comes to express. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the tag says. Such use thereof is INAPPROPRIATE.Galassi (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to ask a second opinion on this. Debresser (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That tag is intended for fake or misrepresented sources, not for inconvenient ones.Galassi (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a second opinion and am awaiting a response. And I find your accusation another insult. As though I would use a tag to make a point that the tag was not intended to make. Somebody should give you a fatherly piece of advise, to stop accusing your fellow editors of all kinds of motives. On Wikipedia we call that Assume good faith. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I never insult anyone (unlike the daft insults directed at YPS by7 someone above). Galassi (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then it is about time you start applying wp:agf seriously. Debresser (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That goes for you as well.Galassi (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor I ask for his opinion on the use of {{Verify credibility}} told me that I had applied it correctly. So it stays. Debresser (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Schneerson paragraph

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 {{Verify credibility}} 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)

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)

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)

Are hassidic sources subject to academic peer review?-Galassi (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Requirement"

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)

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)

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)

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

Wrong century

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)

WRONG CENTURY referred to Polish cantonists, these only appear after 1831.--Galassi (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Collateral damage.--Galassi (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please note that the Polish people living on the territory of Partitioned Poland were never a "minority" objectively speaking, or any part of "ethic minorities" within the empire. They were a majority... on occupied land (so to speak). Therefore, they are in the wrong section of this article. The partitioned Poland deserves a separate subsection including Polish Jews who lived in Poland (not in Russia) since the 10th century... about three-quarters of all Jews by the middle of the 16th century. Also, the article lede fails to mention that the cantonists existed beyond the 18th century. There was no WRONG CENTURY in reference to the 19th century in the lede. The wp:lede needs to specify when the cantonists ceased to exist, which they never did. Also, please refrain from referring to any of your edits as "collateral damage", because this is not a war, not in my mind. Poeticbent talk 15:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

• 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.[2] Poeticbent talk 03:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

---

I was wondering if anybody out there would give your support for the development of a new section about the situation in Poland specifically. I would gladly look into the idea, but only if there was a sense of approval from the members of our community, otherwise I'm not interested in dealing with blanket-reverts. Poeticbent talk 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

incomplete

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/058/649.htm
• Added {{dead link}} 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 {{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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Parallels with Suvorov and Nakhimov schools

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)