Talk:Russian Winter

Old talk
Who ever said that weather is quoted among the major reasons for german faliure of Barbarossa? It never was quoted as such, the evidence of which is the quote of german officer present in this very article. winter is a well known myth about why Russia won the conflict. No serious historian would ever say that winter had any significant impact on the outcome of conflict, it is just laughable, since it affects both sides of conflict, and during Napoleon invasion it affected russians more, since russians were in the depth of their territory, where winter is more severe. Could we please stop this common stereotype, unconfirmed by ANYTHING other than some people's wish to present winter as the major factor and not russian military strength, national character and military training.

Why does this article exist? The tactic it describes is covered by Scorched earth, and winter in Russia is in no way special compared to climatically similar parts of the world to deserve an article of its own.


 * I agree. This article is very poor. Scorched earth is poor as well, but this article is very poor. It has nothing about the actual Russian winter - when does it begin, when does it end? Is it uniform all over Russia, or is Siberia harsher than Mongolia? What are the extremes of temperature, and has the temperature increased over recent years? The article has a sarcastic tone, no sources or cites, and ends with a chunk of opinionated original research; or rather it did, until I deleted that bit. I believe that there is potential for an article on the Russian winter - it has altered history on at least two occasions - but it needs to be in the form "In his book X, noted history Y argued that the Russian winter was a contributing factor in Z. The (description of battle, campaign, outcome etc)" and so forth. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually this article is not about the Scorched earth tactics nor about some unpredictable russian clymatic conditions. It's just about a myth and the disclaimer of those who invade Russia :)) MvR 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge
This article is poor. It should be merged. What with, is the question. Any thoughts? Guinnog 15:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe your (badly written and badly punctuated) version to be better than mine? Two points:
 * 1) You can't balance POV with more POV
 * 2) It's rude to revert without giving a reason

Guinnog 17:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine about you moving this from your talk page, but I want you to reply as well, please. Guinnog 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Article is good and NO to merge because an article like the one you want to merg it with is big and mergein it will make it even more so and some people dontlike big articles in wiki and therefore will make this article again. Also I like big articles but I know some dont. (Deng 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

Oppose merging. It is not related to a single historical accident. The article is not so poor: as it stands now is pure original research. However I am quite sure there are quite a few references discuss this lame excuse. The point is to add them and remove some elements of bullshit. `'mikka (t) 07:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The content of the article
I have added some temperature data to the article. I'm native russian so sorry for possible grammar or other mistakes - if someone corrects them I would be grateful. I've been to different regions of Russia, so I can speak objectively about the climate. The text may be somewhat grammatically unliterate though..:)


 * Thanks for your contribution. It really needs more work to become worth keeping, but this is a step in the right direction. Guinnog 18:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

the article describes Soviet forces withdrawing into the interior to draw in German forces in WWII. this is an untrue statement the Soviet forces were killed, captured and beaten back. Their territorial losses were, on the whole, not voluntary. Feel free to check other wikipedia articles and military history sites. by the winter of 1941, the Soviet army of the frontier was almost entirely destroyed. (Jschager 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
 * the nosnense removed. `'mikka 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states, that no one ever won a war with Russia on their territory. " No invader has won a war against Russians on their territory, since the Mongol invasion of Rus in 1223."

But there were many wars fought by Poland on Russian territory, which were successful. The most notable example are the Dimitriads. Although the main goal, the control of the Muscovy throne, was achieved only for a short time, the wars eventualy led to the expansion of Polish territories to the east. The war is also a symbol of the Polish golden age, which occured in the early 17th century.

[]

also the Germans military defeated Russia in WWI.
 * Yes, when half of russian army dropped the riffles because of revolution. (well, not exactly so, but WWI is irrelevant in context of discussing of russian weather). `'mikka 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This a very useful article
This article is very useful...entirely appropriate. I see that someone linked it to my Battle of Krasnoi article. Any Wikipedia articles dealing with foreign invasions of Russia, or wars in Russia, need to be tied-in with the issue of Russia's very unique geographical and climactic situation. No major wars between great world powers have been fought so far to the north except those involving Russia.

As for the article's weaknesses, they can be rectified over time. The criticisms of the article made by others above are a good started point for improving this one.

Kenmore 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Finally
Im a Russian, and Im tired of people saying that the only reason Russia has been able to defeat great invading military powers was because of the climate and geographical location. Finally someone has aknoledged Russia's military capability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.21.158 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

namely, their vast numerical/territorial superiority.

And one thing more: Russians like their winter. When tempreture is below 15, and all around is snow-white, you feel tonus and coolness in your body. A. Pushkin,the greatest Russian poet wrote:

Tanya (profoundly Russian being,    herself not knowing how or why) in Russian winters thrilled at seeing the cold perfection of the sky, hoar-frost and sun in freezing weather, sledges, and tardy dawns together with the pink glow the snows assume and festal evenings in the gloom.

Eugene Onegin Chapter 5

Sorry for my English.

Please add some real data to this page
I notice that the "russian winter" page is classed both as a Russian history page and as a Physics page - but it's all totally qualitative so far with no quantitative detail on it. There are good maps available that show how *dreadfully* cold the winter is in Russia compared to western Europe. One is on Google books at http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9W7ofyqW5moC&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291&dq=winter+%22mean+temperatures%22+europe+map&source=web&ots=YzLK12UKea&sig=aj5Uy4-AN82ZNBU4uU6TTuni9p4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result {click the link and then scroll up one page). A non-altitude corrected one is in every edition of Bartholomew's atlas on the Eurasia page.  Could a Wiki person please find one that is copyright-free, or get a licence, so that the science behind "General Winter" can be made clear on the page?  If one of the contributors to this page would like to email j.pyke@qut.edu.au I can send you a scanned copy of the Bartholomew map.

What the maps show is this - that whereas on every other continent the altitude-corrected mean winter temp isotherms run parallel to the Equator, in east Europe they run north-south - every 1000km or so that you advance into Russia the winter temp falls 10deg F (6.25deg C). People in Europe who think they know what winter is simply have no idea! To train for an invasion of Russia an army would have to train in winter near the top of the Alps - and pretend that their supply lines were 1500+kms long. They don't do that because it would be too hard - and they still think that they could invade Russia.

So, patriotic Russians, stop pretending that the role of your winter had nothing to do with the defeat of napoleon and Hitler. Of course the fact that you fought like mad had a lot to do with it too, but the poor b*ggers from the West really had no idea how to equip an army for a place where the mean July temp is 10deg F (-12deg C). Rejoice in the strength of your army *and* in your winter!

"a place where the mean July temp is 10deg F (-12deg C). " What?! Please, think before you write. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northern_Hemisphere_summer_heat_wave#Russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.124.206.39 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pykie from sunny Brisbane, Australia (I've never been to Russia but I can read a map)

Language in Introduction
The current introduction for the article reads: "The Russian (or Soviet) Winter is a common excuse for military failures of invaders in Russia. Common nicknames are General Frost, General Winter and General Snow. Another was "General Mud"( see "rasputitsa")."

I am going to change it to: "The Russian (or Soviet) Winter is a common explanation for military failures of invaders in Russia. Common nicknames are General Frost, General Winter and General Snow. Another was "General Mud" (see "rasputitsa")."

To explain myself:
 * 1) I do not see the issue of the responsibility of "General Winter" for military defeats being resolved by any means, especially with a lack of sources stating either way.
 * 2) The word "excuse" seems to be a weasel word. In addition, it does not appear NPOV either.

I have noticed that this change has been made before and later reverted. I do not want an edit war here, so if this continues I plan on requesting some arbitration in the matter (per 3RR). Please discuss any further edits on this topic here before making them. --Noha307 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Excuse" is not a weasel word: it is an opinion about explanations. You are right that "explanation" is a correct neutral word. However many researchers do think this is but an excuse. However opinions must be cited (and BTW the article misses this part). Further, I corrected the intro: not all invasions were unsuccessful (in the sense of not being defeated in the very same military campaign). Most notably tatar-mongol invasion: somehow these peoples from sunny deserts were not stopped by winter. Also Poles invaded Russia several times, and even even in most reccent times grabbed a significant chunk of Russian Empire from Soviets, and were defeated each time not at all because of winter. In other words, 'General Frost' is bullshit: the actual reasons of defeat of French and Deutsch was their arrogance or ignorance: frost as any other natural factor, like swamps and rivers and mountains and what else, must be taken into an account in proper military planning.- Altenmann >t 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistical temperature data
Maybe one should add some statistical data : http://mosoborona.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA-%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80.jpg

(during the german attack on moscow 41' - temp around -5 - -10 C, during russian counterattack up to -25C) That pretty much beats the myth about -40 C as a cause for germans to stop their attacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.47.198 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM discussing the downcasing of "Winter". Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → Winter in Russia – to use a generic naming pattern. "Russian winter" should at any rate not be capitalised as if it was a proper noun; as it happens, Russian Winter is the title of various novels, probably none of which are notable. Although I have not found direct cases to compare this to, there is Autumn in New England. (Category:Autumn also contains Indian summer, which is not about summer in India.) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC) – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought it already was moved. What are we waiting for? True, winter shouldn't be capitalized in the old title, but that would seem to be moot, since the new title will be Winter in Russia. Sca (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Sovereign  / Sentinel 01:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support move to Russian winter per Altenmann's comments. I realized that this article was distinct from Climate of Russia. However, text in the article uses 'Russian winter' instead of 'Russian Winter'. Sovereign  / Sentinel 16:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose . Obviously you did not bother to read the article. It is not about weather in Russia.  The article is about Russian Winter Capitalized which has been an excuse for various losers in wars against Russia.-M.Altenmann >t 02:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose seriously, have all above read the article? this article is about General Frost a personification of the Napoleonic and other winter disasters suffered by foreign invaders - it cannot cannot cannot be moved to Winter in Russia. Also in books mentioning the personification and myth the W is often capitalized. However Russian Winter (military history) or something might be better. Russian Winter (Daphne Kalotay novel) should redirect to author. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Russian winter - I can't see any justification for a capital letter. I agree with In ictu oculi that the proposed title doesn't work. Red Slash 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Russian Winter" is a defined concept, and the article is not about winters in Russia.  Funny thing here on capitalization, if English followed its own rules, Winter would always be capitalized.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 10 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. No prejudice to proposing "General Winter" at another RM. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → Russian winter – Make "Russian" an adjective and "winter" a common noun. I don't think "Russian winter" has ever been a proper noun, is it? And I don't care what sources use either. George Ho (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not about winter in Russia, it is about the effects on warfare (season of mud followed by season of freeze) General Winter redirects here, that should be used instead -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, see previous discussion. And a very interesting argument "I don't care what sources use". Yes, it is a proper noun, a reference to a common excuse of various failed invaders - the subject of the article. Whereas the article "Russian winter" would be correctly named "winter in Russia". But people obviously have no idea what is Russia, if they think that winter is the same over the whole Russia. -M.Altenmann >t 15:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Russian winter" per above. Support move to "General Winter" per 67.70.32.20. Khestwol (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 July 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Future requests may want to take a different tack and try a descriptive title, like Winter in Russian military history. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Winter → General Winter – WP:COMMONNAME: "General Winter" is more common than "Russian Winter", "General Frost", or "General Snow", as per Google Ngram. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nom. See also the yesterday's RM above, where moving to "General Winter" had been supported. Also, the proposed title is unambiguous as compared to the current title. Khestwol (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- less confusing as to the article subject. -M.Altenmann >t 16:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per previous discussion ; this is not about winter in Russia, this is about the effects of winter in Russia on warfare, and it has some common names, such as "General Winter" -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support to reduce confusion. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Ngram is thoroughly deceptive, which you might guess from thinking about how common these phrases might be in unrelated contexts. For "General Winter", of the first 40 results in Google Books, 29 are not about this topic (i.e., only 11 are) (an actual general named Winter; "general winter pruning"; "General Winter Cleat"; "general winter ecology program" and similar). As for "General Frost" and "General Snow", not even one of the first ten Google books results for either of them are about this topic at all. Russian Winter appears to be the common name in English, or at least we must start with a blank slate, with the understanding that the Ngram results are meaningless.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:PTM do not concern this nomination. Your partial title matches are just that, partial. As we don't have an article on a general named Winter, that is also not pertinent. Further, this article isn't about Russian Winter, is is about warfare during winter in Russia, the "Russian Winter" is a much much broader topic, in Russian culture and history, as can be seen in Russian cultural works. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing whatever to do with partial title matches. You apparently misunderstand the basis of the nomination and my criticism of it. A significant calculus in choosing article titles is their commonality in reliable English language sources—how the world refers to a topic and recognizes it. See WP:COMMONNAME. The basis of the nomination is that "General Winter" is a more common title than "Russian Winter" (and the two others) to refer to this topic, and was grounded on an Ngram of usage of the four phrases across English language books. What I have shown is that a large percentage of the results seen in the Ngram are false-positives – while the exact title phrases at issue do appear in the books, those apparent matches are false leads, as large numbers included are not about this topic. We are not here about a disambiguation page and WP:PTM has no bearing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have however not acknowledged that "Russian Winter" also has false positives, and is more ambiguous and less clear than "General Winter". The image in the article uses "General Winter" to refer to the topic for a reason. Khestwol (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true, I did not supply an alternative comparison (which is what prompted my last sentences ["starting with a blank slate..."]), but I am not the proponent of the move. Nevertheless, to begin that analysis we need delimiters for any book search comparison to be meaningful. A book search of:
 * <"russian winter" "German invasion"> produces 719 result, versus 150 for <"general winter" "German invasion">; and
 * <"russian winter" "military failure"> produces 127 results, versus 8 for <"general winter" "military failure">.
 * As for ambiguity, there is no other article by this title and we already have a hatnote pointing to the a DAB page which links to Climate of Russia among others. I think this topic is the primary among them – what most people searching would be looking for when typing the phrase into a search here. This article got 13,004 views over the last 90 days. The DAB page was viewed only 25 times over the same period indicating very few people landed here and were looking for something else. As for it being "clear", we don't view titles as being clear or not by what their words might convey to someone not already familiar with the topic. Our chief concern is by what name the world recognizes a topic, titling it by what it is actually called in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, and not astonishing the majority of those navigating to a topic. At this point it does appear this is the common name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If a title is ambiguous or inaccurate, despite how commonly used it is, then we can't use the title. That's what WP:COMMONNAMES says. --George Ho (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment - Despite majority, after reading the opposition, I've decided to do this instead. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Fuhghettaboutit per Fuhghettaboutit. Randy Kryn 11:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, for the name "Russian winter" the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is winter in Russia (which is, by far, a more notable topic), and merely the capital W of "Russian Winter" does not differentiate it appropriately from "winter in Russia". Wikipedia's policy is to use recognizable and unambiguous titles that are not easily confused with other topics (especially if the other topics are more notable), and the proposed title "General Winter" is unambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Besides Fuhghettaboutit's (great user name) persuasive case the name "Russian Winter" is one I've heard of for decades when the foolishness of attacking Russia by land near the winter months is a topic, and I'm probably not alone in that experience. "Russian Winter" is almost a meme when discussing that war tactic. "Winter in Russia" is a good name, but it's a redirect to "Climate of Russia", which is an entirely different topic than the war impediment posed by the harsh conditions. Randy Kryn 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: you might still need a hatnote for General August Winter. (Brigadier-general Ormonde Winter less so) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can add that hatnote since "General Winter" already redirects to this article. However, August Winter is a barely known topic while "winter in Russia"/climate of Russia is a very notable topic. If we compare, in the last 90 days, "climate of Russia" has been viewed 2,143 times, while "August Winter" has been viewed only 85 times So, "General Winter" is still not as ambiguous as "Russian Winter"/"Russian winter". Khestwol (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the aboves. It seems like time to step away from the horse. Calidum T&#124;C 23:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Above" most editors favor the move so if your !vote was based on that really, you would not be opposing. But apparently you are opposing. Do you support the ambiguous title "Russian Winter"? It differs from "Russian winter" (winter in Russia) (a far more notable topic, with many times more page views for the page where it redirects to) by only a capital W vs small w which is not an enough differentiation. The article is not about Russian winters but only a warfare concept. Please read the article. Khestwol (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The people who favored the move were led down the garden path by your Ngram. Where are you getting the idea that the topic of Winter is Russia is "more notable" other than by assertion it is so? First, the concept of notability, the topic inclusion standard, is a misnomer here – you appear to be calling to a primacy standard, which looks to whether when a particular term is searched for "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Anyway, call it notability or primacy, what is your assertion based upon? We don't need to guess. As I said in a prior post, article traffic for this article over the last 90 days was over 13,000 views. Winter in Russia got 124 views over the same time period, and as I said the DAB page was viewed only 25 times. That latter metric means that almost everyone who typed Russian W inter or Russian w inter into a search and landed here, was looking for this and not the season.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right about this article being viewed more times than Climate of Russia. But still clarity is a parameter which can't be ignored. The only article that the proposed title "General Winter" can be confused with i.e. August Winter is not notable, and has negligible number of views in last 90 days as compared to "Climate of Russia", the article that the current title can be confused with. The main issue here is clarity. Khestwol (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In English, the subject topic is far more commonly known as "Russian Winter" than "General Winter". Additionally, "Russian Winter" is less ambiguous than "General Winter", which is a phrase that is not just generally unclear/ambiguous, as User:Fuhghettaboutit has shown above, but ambiguous even within military context, as it could refer to a general surnamed Winter, and beyond that, ambiguous even within the context of military strategy, as it could refer to the advantage gained by any cold country, not just Russia, fighting a war against a warmer country rather than the specifically Russian subject content of this article. —Lowellian (reply) 15:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Current title (28 July 2015)
"Russian Winter" is the current title. Even when commonly used, is it an accurate title? Per WP:COMMONNAMES, inaccurate or ambiguous names are discouraged. If not accurate, what is your suggested title? --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Beware. Following titles did not have consensus in past move discussions: "Winter in Russia", "Russian winter" (actually, request was withdrawn when people opposed it), and "General Winter". Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice. Again, beware. --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just go for a purely descriptive title? Effects of winter in European Russia on warfare-- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest move to "Winter warfare in Russia". This is a WP:CONCISE yet totally clear descriptive title, and reflects the scope of the article. Khestwol (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Saying "Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice" flies directly in the face of talkpage guidelines (Talk_page_guidelines). Want to retract that? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I'm trying to "change the meaning of someone else's comment"? Prove it. I'll make sure that votes on one of those titles aren't repeated here until the discussion is over. George Ho (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no right to strike anyone else's vote or comment. That is explicitly against policy at WP:TALK. You flat-out wrote that you intend to remove others' votes and censor others' comments. Hiding someone else's comment is changing their meaning. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm sure this is well intentioned, but it's nonetheless disruptive to start an RFC that looks and feels like a move request after three successive requests were rejected in less than two months. Why can't we all just move along? Calidum T&#124;C 23:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just a mere RFC. It might lead to title change usually. In this case, it might not with multiple suggestions flying around. This discussion doesn't request changing to one specific title. Instead, it discusses the current title itself. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a precursor to the RM. If I see enough suggestions, then I'll pick one of them as a suitable proposed title for the next RM. And this is better than RM with "?" indicating you don't have a suggested title. George Ho (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Winter warfare in Russia. Descriptive, given no accepted proper name, and concise.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close. This discussion is thoroughly tainted by the nomination, which attempts to pre-state and steer what the consensus is and chill discussion of what is supposed to be under discussion, no less with threats. Were this RfC to reach an apparent consensus as to anything, it would not be acceptable because of its corrupted origin. Had I not participated in a prior RM – were I coming here wearing my admin hat to look at the discussion – this would be closed already, and at the least, a trout would be on the nominator's talk page. I intentionally do not address the merits, or lack thereof, of the initial statement because of this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per User:Fuhghettaboutit. This RFC abuses process as a masked attempt at an immediate 4th RM after the first 3, within 2 months, failed. A "spam requested moves until one succeeds" strategy is at work here. It has a non-neutral opening statement that is against WP:RFC rules ("Statement should be neutral and brief"). Even worse, the nomination makes an explicit censorship threat ("Do not suggest these titles in this discussion. If you do, I will strike your vote on either of them out alongside your comments without warning or notice. Again, beware.") that is abusive and against Wikipedia policy, and which unduely influences, chills, and slants any resulting discussion, as well as requires constant checking of the page history to ensure that comments have not been removed. —Lowellian (reply) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close. Along with the prejudicial wording already mentioned four attempts to move the article in under two months shows a need to WP:DROPTHESTICK by the nominator. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural Note. I suspect this RFC is fatally flawed, but I know the threat to remove others' comments was not acceptable, so I've removed that threat.  If others' comments are removed, I will block the person doing the removing.  This decision was easy, I'll leave the harder decision on whether to shut down or continue the RFC to others.  My personal opinion, if that's worth anything, is that this is a discussion worth having, but a month or two cool down period might be appropriate, to avoid people reacting to the frequency of the requests, rather than the subject matter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close per Fuhghettaboutit and MarnetteD This is way too soon!  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have to criticize this article. The sources of the article consist of only 3 of which 1 is a dead link, its way to view and doesnt correlate with how much is written. And unlike with most other articles, its lacking a criticism section, criticizing the concept about the role of the Russian winter in the wars.--Crossswords (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Crossswords, I appreciate your concern about an inadequate number of references. However, I don't understand the need for a "criticism section". Are there those, who don't believe that the Russian winter had no role in the various wars? If so, perhaps you could provide some sources on that topic to provide a basis for what you mean? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed the problematic link: Chew, Allen F. Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have supplied a reference to the only unreferenced paragraph. User:HopsonRoad 14:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ I don't see a clear justification for why the neutrality of this article was questioned with a tag. The comment about a criticism section appears to be about the completeness of the article, not its neutrality. User:HopsonRoad 14:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi HopsonRoad, with criticism i just mean the over-estimation by historians, about the weather impact in these wars.--Crossswords (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Crossswords. It appears that the main sources cited in the article agree that winter and its aftermath were only a contributing factor, regarding the outcome of the campaigns described. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Basis for title change?
, I don't see the basis for your changing the title of this article from "Russian Winter". There were two germane discussions (above) about moving this page to a new name, including this one. They either resulted in a consensus not to or no consensus. On what basis did you make this move? I don't see a discussion supporting it or even an edit comment explaining it. It happens that I'm OK, but not thrilled with it, because it appears to have been changed without consensus. Now the article title looks like it is about a season in Russia, not about the military impact thereof. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the ping. The move was requested by at WP:RM/TR. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 10:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your prompt reply. As you can see from the above discussions, it was not an "uncontroversial technical request". I suggest that you open yet another discussion here to determine whether it should be ratified by consensus or whether a clearer name should be identified. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , per your comment above, I'm going to revert the move. Best, — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 11:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)