Talk:Rasputitsa

Should Be Merged With Mud Season

1. "Rasputitsa" mean exactly the same thing as "Mud Season".

2. Everything written here about Napoleonic wars and WWII is a urban legend. Russia had a system of paved roads since 18 century and by the time of WWII they obviously a system of railways.

--Rheinguld 12:48, 29 september 2012 (UTC)

Not quite so! It is true that there were SOME paved roads in Russia since 18 century but there were very few of them, compared to Western Europe. By the time of WWII certainly there was a system of railways but again, it was not (and still is not) as extensive as in Western Europe. Even now there are a lot of unpaved minor roads in countryside, while in Western Europe even minor roads are usually paved.

But, speaking of warefare in Russia, it must be noted that the lack of proper roads was a disadvantage for Russian/Soviet troops as well, even when they were on the defencive (not to speak of offencives) - you cannot move supplies and reserves quickly without good roads!Olegwiki (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rospuutto vs kelirikko

The distinction between rospuutto and kelirikko in Finnish seems unsupported by the standard Finnish dictionaries, and a google search produces no support either. The article in the Finnish Wikipedia makes this distinction, but, likewise, it quotes no sources (rather, it made this distinction until just now when I revised it). The words are in fact synonymous, with the only distinction being that rospuutto is dialectal and kelirikko standard Finnish.

I can imagine an argument that since rospuutto derives from the Russian word, it should only properly refer to land conditions, but such an argument would require support. Rospuutto may also have once been used only in some dialects, but it is a known word throughout Finland, and whether the word kelirikko has its origins in some regional dialect or is an academical coinage, it is now the standard word for seasonal weather-induced disruptions in communications, terrestrial as well as insular.

Also, the phenomenon occurs in the inland waters of Finland too, and is therefore not specific to the Archipelago.

--Rallette 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that the article is inherently wrong. The seasonal state of roadlessness is encountered virtually everywhere. We know that Russian and Finnish language have separate words for it. My Russian-foreign dictionaries tells me:

• no single-word equivalent in English, French, Italian,
• German: Schlammperiode , Schlammwetter, which are "mud period", "mud weather", but German is famous of making a single word from a whole sentence :-)
• Spanish: lodazal (quagmire), fangal (bad unpaved road)

So I think the aricle must be heavily redone. You are welcome to do whatever you think necessary with finnish part (please don't forget references). I will try to deal with Russian and a bit international research. `'mikka 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I added several references, both to Rasputitsa and russian mud in general - hope it covers the most. Ulflarsen 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is totally stupid. Seasonaö problems with roads are not only in Finland and Russia but everywhere where there is frost in ground. --SM (talk) 06:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian winters, advantage?

Weather is mostly (not always) a neutral factor in warfare. A counterexample to this claim is impassible roads that do slow down the advance. But winters? Yes it's cold, everybody is cold. The side that figures out that it needs to dress warmly, uses antifreezing lubricants and oil in tanks, wins, those who don't - loose. Those who bank on a fast campaign and do not prepare for the winter - loose. It does not take an Einstein to figure out that it will be cold in Russia in the winter and plan for it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.86.25 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rasputitsa in Russian literally mean roadlessness not refer to quagmire .From russian ПУТЬ( put') - path , road , negative prefix РАС ( ras- ) and suffix -ИЦА ( -itsa ) РАСПУТИЦА —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.163.58 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

рас- isn't a negative prefix, and распутица doesn't mean "roadlessness", I can speak it as a native Russian. MBH (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ras- or raz- can mean “apart, away,” or “dis-, un-,” which are negative prefixes. —Michael Z. 18:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Rasputitsa vs Rasputin

It might be interesting to add some text re the etymological relationship between Rasputitsa and Rasputin the name. 151.248.194.199 (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Edward Radzinsky Alexandra, the tsarina, was upset about his unpleasant sounding last name and Rasputin was asked to write a permission for a name change. In December 1906 “Grigori explained that six families in Pokrovskoe bore the surname Rasputin, and this was producing “every sort of confusion” and “to end this … by permitting me and my descendants to take the name Rasputin-Novyi (Новый)”, which means “Rasputin-New” or the “New Rasputin”.

Russian word used to describe situation in Ukraine may be considered colonial

The lead suggests that the word is used outside Russia. Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, simply having this content fork of the article Mud season is colonial because it’s the same subject, only pretending that it meets WP:GNG because occasionally a Russian name is used for it.

See #Should Be Merged With Mud Season above and talk:Mud season#Merge proposal.  —Michael Z. 16:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks colonial/authoritarian to me to decide this article should be deleted/merged without leaving a message on the talk page.Taksen (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Then go change the rules for posting WP:AFD, because I followed them.  —Michael Z. 14:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It should not get crazier on Wikipedia

We are not in Russia where one person can decide what is going to happen. You cannot propose an article for deletion when there is only one person who suggested this and above all did not discuss it. More important is the rule that there are 29 articles on the same subject in different languages. This is a sufficient reason to stop any discussion. There are perhaps 50,000 rules on Wikipedia, but this one is easy to remember.Taksen (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC) I am not surprised a German favors the deletion of this article. ByebyeTaksen (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

There exists no such rule, on the contrary: see WP:OTHERLANGS. Please also no personal attacks, especially if they are nonsense: User:Mzajac who proposed deletion seems to be a Canadian, and I as German favored this article not to be deleted, see my vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasputitsa. --Cyfal (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Everyone can see that I proposed it for the purpose of discussing it.  —Michael Z. 13:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What they do secretly somewhere without mentioning this on the talk page is against the rules.Taksen (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC) We do not need a privy council on Wikipedia.Taksen (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t indulge in disparaging conspiracy theories about other editors. It is against WP:ASPERSIONS and could make others think you have generally poor judgment.  —Michael Z. 13:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It should be the other way around: Rasputitsa has ten times more visitors a month than Mud season (ca 11,000 and 1,100). Every one can see on talk:Mud season Mzajac has a goal: to get rid off the Rasputitsa article to which he contributed very surprisingly since 2005! In April 2022 he suggested already a merge. What is the explanation of this unnecessary merge? Should we follow the Ukrainian Wikipedia where they use "bezdorizhzhia" ('roadlessness' or 'off-road conditions') instead of Rasputitsa? I don't trust this proposal to merge.Taksen (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It was Cyfal who added after a few hours a link to this discussion; not Mzajac. It cannot be true that if one starts a discussion he doesn't have to mention this on the specific talk page. It causes confusion certainly not clarity.Taksen (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Scope of the article

There seems to be disagreement whether rasputitsa stops at the Ukrainian border. Additions and deletions have been made by @Smurrayinchester,[1] @Kyoukoku,[2] @Altenmann,[3] @Altenmann,[4] @Iskandar323,[5] and some anon(s). Establishing the subject is key to the ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasputitsa.

Let’s decide what rasputitsa is before the edit warring escalates.  —Michael Z. 17:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that current Ukrainian-Russian border is irelevant to the topic, since both in 1812 and 1941 Ukraine and Russia were part of the same state (Russian Empire/Soviet Union). Same goes for Russian-Belarusian border etc. Marcelus (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

So in your opinion state borders are relevant or no?  —Michael Z. 19:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I already answered that Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what relevance a long-dead empire has to the question of the inclusion of Russia’s current war against Ukraine.

But I guess you actually meant no state borders are relevant? Okay. So rasputitsa (“the Russian-language term for a mud season”) ends nowhere, and this article’s scope includes Ukraine and Poland too? But not Canada?  —Michael Z. 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems quite clear from the article that the topic here is a weather and topography-based phenomena in a distinct geographical area of eastern Europe incorporating parts of Belarus, Ukraine and the Western fringes of Russia. As noted above, national borders are irrelevant to it, since the rain and mud aren't influenced by nationalistic sentiments. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

But the phenomenon is not limited to this distinct geographical area, and cited sources say it occurs in Estonia and Canada, for example (although since this has become a topic of discussion, some editors have been removing and re-adding sources so I’ve lost track). It’s only one name for it that sources say is used there. Older sources mentioned the Russian term rasputitsa and new ones mention the Ukrainian bezdorizhzhia, indicating that various names are applied, but the subject remains the same.  —Michael Z. 20:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Estonia isn't a different geography; it's just next door. It doesn't really matter if mud season is a more general topic. The subject here is the northeast European mud season. This is a child article of mud seasons in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Why does Northeastern European mud season need to be a child article, by whatever title?  —Michael Z. 21:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Rasputitsa is a heavy mud season in Russian Empire. Are you satisfied with that answer? Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Could anyone be? It’s kind of a non-sequitur unless you’re proposing changing the scope of the article to “mud season in the Russian empire,” which doesn’t seem to be supported by sources.  —Michael Z. 13:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Rasputitsa is the standard term used by English language writers to describe the annual muddy conditions that cover a large swath of Eastern Europe. The term is of Russian origin but like monsoon is of Arabic origin or tsunami of Japanese origin it does not describe a conditions only in the country the word came from. The article should mention the other terms used in English for the phenomena, and if any of them one day supplant rasputitsa in popularity the article can be renamed. - SimonP (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

But 1) those other words appear in English dictionaries, and 2) those other subjects are the main article about specific subjects. A monsoon is “seasonal changes in atmospheric circulation and precipitation associated with annual latitudinal oscillation of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) between its limits to the north and south of the equator.” A tsunami is “a series of waves in a water body caused by the displacement of a large volume of water.” Rasputitsa is “the Russian-language term for a mud season.” This is not even presented as an article about a thing, but about a local name for a thing that has a main article. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. It writes about the same thing, but only mainly referring to it in restricted contexts because some sources tell us the thing has been called by this name there. (It also tells us it’s been called by other names there, but we made an article about this one name. Because, Russia!).

This is why we need to establish the scope. —Michael Z. 13:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the introduction, it now does not any longer say Rasputitsa is “the Russian-language term for a mud season” but that it is used in English sources as well, although taken from the Russian language. --Cyfal (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It it an English technical term? Is the subject of this article an English term? I mean MOS:REFERS. —Michael Z. 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It's got an Oxford reference entry as a weather term, and, as discussed, it has been used extensively in English language news sources over the last 18 months, e.g.: France 24, which notes that: "Military historians have always known that Rasputitsa -- sometimes called "General Mud" -- can thwart even the mightiest armies." before giving the attributions that accompany the famous Russian mud season in particular: that it thwarted both Napoleon and Hitler. If nothing else, the Russian mud season is notable for this extremely significiant role (as compared to other mud seasons) in European military history. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The dictionary entry doesn’t mark it as technical. The quotation is about what historians have known about mud season, and not about the term, and it is not a technical context. In fact you’ve omitted that the article says it is the word used by locals and that its definition is contrary to the dictionary’s. This is a use of the vernacular term by a journalist, not a quotation of any military historians, so if anything it is exemplary of non-technical use.

And neither source is referring to “Russian” mud season. Your other insight here is that Eastern European mud season has affected wars in Eastern Europe (although “thwarted” is an exaggeration), therefore it deserves a separate article. Shall we also spin off French mud season, because there are pictures of WWI horses and trucks stuck in mud there, or does it need a catchy term used in popular articles to be encyclopedic?  —Michael Z. 14:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there hundreds of sources talking about the French mud season? If so it sounds like the topic of a good article. I doubt there are though. A reverse example is that we have an article on banlieue, which is simply the French term for a suburb. That term has taken on a separate cultural and historical set of meanings so it has an article. We do not and should not have a prigorod page because the Russian term for suburb has no such currency. - SimonP (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there hundreds of RS giving significant coverage to rasputitsa per GNG? Then it should be easy agreeing whether the subject is a “a (technical) term taken from the Russian language” as the article says now, or “a season of the year when travel on unpaved roads or across country becomes difficult” as it said in July.[6]  —Michael Z. 18:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a technical term, but it is a historically sufficient localised mud season with a name that has been repeated oft enough and in a sufficiently specific set of circumstances to be discussed separately to the general phenomena. Parent article-child article is how Wikipedia is supposed to work anyway, right? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you take a stab at rewriting the first sentence or lead paragraph with that definition in mind and citing sources? The current one doesn’t follow sources and is and somewhat self-contradictory.

Yes, articles beget child articles WP:Summary style when they are too long. The total length of these two articles together is nowhere near a size requiring splitting according to WP:SIZESPLIT. This should be merged into a section of mud season, so the subject is not fragmented and to avoid duplication, and an be split off when warranted.  —Michael Z. 21:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Ok, I've reworked the lead, supporting each statement directly to a source. Incidentally, since Rasputitsa and Bezdorizhzhya appear to be very much synonyms, with one simply being much more common than the other, I would very much support merging these into a single Eastern Europe section on the mud season page in place of the currently rather duplicative side-by-side sections. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It’s a bit of a slog, but I think this is moving towards overall improvement. As the article text gradually gets more specific, IMO it’s harder to look at it and try to justify a distinct subject warranting in independent article. I’m still in favour of a merge.  —Michael Z. 13:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Template

When and by whom will this template be removed? It seems there are not many participants in the discussion for deletion. Last year it took almost six weeks for someone to work up the courage to remove the template. The rules are unclear to me, but it seems that whoever posted the template should also remove it. I hope this will not take long because the call for deletion marred the article. The fact that Mzajac tried to bypass the contributors to this article by initiating a discussion, after a first failed attempt, without notice on the talk page bothers me. Taksen (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC) I would not mind if he gets blocked for a couple of weeks, otherwise this could go on for weeks. He uses different alias to sign which make it difficult to find out who wrote what but is the same person. Taksen (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:CLOSEAFD. The deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days, and Mzajac is not responsible for removing the template, he should even not do it, but another uninvolved admin.

Also, it is not necessary to anounce the proposed deletion on the talk page, because the template on the article's page makes it much more prominent and visible than any text on the talk page.

--Cyfal (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

He should have discussed a renewed proposal of deletion on the talk page before he announced it on Articles for deletion. He is cheating.Taksen (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Taksen, no, that is not part of the deletion nomination procedure, per WP:AFDHOWTO.

What is your problem? Anyone with the article in their watchlist would have seen that I tagged it for deletion as much as if I had started a pre-deletion discussion. There is no requirement to discuss starting a deletion discussion before doing so.

What do you want? If you want me punished for “cheating,” take it to WP:ANI. If you want the deletion discussion halted, then find a guideline that supports your case and take it to WP:ANI. If you want to keep badmouthing me in discussions, I suggest you consult WP:DISRUPT before continuing.  —Michael Z. 16:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)