This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Yes. Please go ahead and move it. 172 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The first sentence is bad as it explain the consequence before describing what happened. Ericd 23:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Very true. I fixed. Let me know what you think. --Jfruh 15:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- May I query why there is nothing about external influences on this MAJOR event? After all, it is possible that, had the 'coup' succeeded, a resumption of the Cold War may have been possible. Remember the on-off-on-off etc. Hundred Years War. That would probably not have been a good thing.
For example, I understand that, whilst Gorbachev was under house arrest (so-called) the BBC came under pressure from the John MajorCabinet to resume the - then very recently-abandoned - Russian language broadcasts that their Russian Service had been transmitting for many decades. It is unclear, to a Brit who was in Britain at that time, what effect this had.
Doubtless there were other external influences - many of little weight, doubtless.
Can anyone add any more? Autochthony wrote: 26 August 2009 at 2035z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
A brother in the Unification Church told me (in a face-to-face conversation) that Gorbachev was able to maintain contact with the outside world via a fax machine supplied by the church, whose existence was unknown to coup plotters. They thought they had cut all his phone lines, but they didn't know about the fax machine.
I'm not sure how to mention this in the article (or even whether to do so). But it's interesting that after the Christmas Resignation and the re-organization of the Soviet Union into the CIS, Unificationist missionaries flooded the former empire by the hundreds. Uncle Ed 18:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
His daughter was able to sneak messages out from Foros on the evening of the second night so it's not as if it was hermetically sealed. There are even those conspiracy theorists who state that Gorbachev knew of an impending coup and did nothing to prevent it in the hope that in the aftermath of its "inevitable" failure his own position would be strengthened but that he miscalculated. Jatrius (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
that is insane bullshit. so you are saying they CUT HIS PHONE LINES but he used a FAX MACHINE?
look, the "coup" was FAKE kids. there was no "collapse" of communism. the communists staged a "break from the past"
you people are retarded.
Who are the communists ? Gorbatchev was a communist, Eltsin was a communist, Poutine was a communist those who made the coup were communist.... However comunism collapsed in USSR... Who's retarded ? As nobody at that time was really believing in communism they were all playing different games. Communism or at least Stalinism is dead. Ericd 21:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) __________________________
The sentence in the article about the Baltic countries "pressing for full independence" is incorrect. Lithuana and other countries/republics had already declared full independence. I recommend a change.
In fact this is not totally correct. True, Lithuania re-declared independence earlier (11th of March 1990), but Estonia only on 20th of August 1991 and Latvia on 21st of August 1991. So the sentence mentioned is partially true. However I agree it could by worded better Boy
I think this is incorrect: "re-recognized" by the United States and other western social democracies who throughout the era of Cold War had considered the 1940 Soviet annexation of the three Baltic nations illegal in the first place. First of all, since when was United States a 'social democracy'????? Second, the United States did not always contest the annexation of the three Baltic nations as illegal. The US and Stalinist USSR were allies in the war remember?
I've moved this paragraph from the article here to the talk page:
The coup attempt was a blunder from the very beginning. As mentioned before, the plotters failed to acheive the main objetives of any succesful coup. First of all, the KGB made the mistake of not arresting Boris Yeltsin, who was a popular leader capable of creating resistance. Second, they did not pull the plug on the main communications of everyone other than Gorbachev. And third, they lacked reliable, motivated soldiers, since many of them believed they were performing another drill.
This reads like an original research essay. If we're going to include it, we need more than just the anonymous author's opinion on these facts. —Cleared as filed. 12:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what was one of the most spectacular, the huge parliament building on fire, in particular the level in the middle. Marc Venot 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This was in the events of October 1993, not in August 1991
Why does every article has that unique anglo POV?
My dears, wether you like it or not and wether you agree or not, Belarus is not a dictatorship. If Lukashenko's opponents characterize his government as a dictatorship, assuming such terminology in a supposedly neutral article is a severe violation to WP:NPOV. --184.108.40.206 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is the coup also known as the "Vodka Putsch"? If it's mentioned, the article should explain why. (I think I remember that Gorbachev tried to restrict the sale of vodka due to increasing problems with alcoholism, but what's the connection?)Camillus(talk) 09:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's called the 'Vodka Putsch' because it was rumered that most of the coup plotters where drunk when they made there move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the recent edit to the second sentence referring to the coup leaders as "state capitalists." Sounds like a Maoist POV. Regardless, whatever it seems to you were their aims, they ascribed the need for the coup to return to Leninism, and I think it's generally accepted to refer to them as "hardline communists". --Lenin1991 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is definitely incorrect. The coup leaders hoped to preserve the Soviet State and pull back on Gorbachev's reforms, therefore they were "hardline communists" in the most common usage. I'm not sure how the rules work, but I'm changing it. Dwinetsk 05:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a famous photograph associated with this coup? I've never seen the one photo in the article before so forgive me if I'm just being ignorant. The article could at least mention it if the article is to be included in Category:Photographs. Recury 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The photo in the article of Yeltsin on the tank captures one of the seminal moments in the 20th century. It was as widely seen as say, the photo the Chinese man defying the tank in Tiananmen - so I'd say it probably counts in the category. Camillus(talk) 21:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
haha, you made me smile. :) "conservative communist" huh? so, the way to be a non-conservative communist is passing through your wish for capitalism.. paradox: a communist is only a progressive communist if she wants capitalism to be restored..
That's why we have an encyclopedia at our fingertips. Conservative could refer to anybody who likes the old days & resists change.
Yes but you still dont (or dont want to) understand. The title "conservative COMMUNISTS" is irrelevant because there were no "progressive COMMUNISTS". All communists wanted the fortification of Soviet Union. If they didnt they werent communists. So it may not be a grammatical error but its definately a logical mistake.
Conservative communists do exist: but only in a time in which the application of liberalising reforms is attempted, e.g. 1985-1991 in the USSR. Conservative Communists in this situation therefore wish to maintain the status quo (or the restoration of the pre-reform political situation), and progressive 'Communists' (i.e., members of the Communist Party) wish to democratise, but this does not automatically mean they strive for capitalism. Also, the definition of a Conservative is NOT 'anybody who likes the old days'. Kernow1985 14:31, 13 May 2008
The image Image:1991 coup yeltsin.jpg, which is copyrighted the Associated Press, is used in this page. Wikipedia has to be extremely careful when using AP images, because the threat of a lawsuit is very real. We can only use such images when the image itself (and not just the subject depicted) is iconic and historically important, and when the image is discussed significantly in the article text (not just the caption). For that reason this image was recently nominated for deletion here. Although I chose not to delete the image for now, it is very important that the article be modified to clearly describe the importance of this particular image. If that isn't done, the image will probably be nominated for deletion again soon, and it may be deleted this time. – Quadell(talk) (random) 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put a clip from the 1995 "Internet Show" up on YouTube featuring Demos/Kremvax founder Vadim Antonov speaking about the role of the Internet in resistance to the coup attempt. K8 fan 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed from "Although the coup collapsed in only three days and Gorbachev returned to power, the event crushed the Soviet leader's hopes that the union could be held together in at least a decentralized form." to "Although the coup collapsed in only three days and Gorbachev returned to power, the event seriously undermined the legitimacy of the CPSU and ultimately contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union", as the coup did not 'crush' Gorbachev's hopes of preserving the Union - Gorbachev continued to try and hold together a loose Union of states until December, when Yeltsin organised the Belovezh meeting and effectively dissolved the Soviet Union behind Gorbachev's back. However, what the coup was instrumental in doing, was sealing the fate of the CPSU, the legitimacy of which by then no-one, even its previously-ardent supporter Gorbachev, could uphold.
It's very Americo-centric to claim that the collapse of the Soviet Union brought about the end of the Cold War. Gorbachev had been negotiating arms reductions with Thatcher, Reagan, Bush and the European leaders and committed the USSR to peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree, deleted the phrase. Olegwiki (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to sounds too Americo-centric but...since the US and USSR were involved in the Cold War, doesn't it make sense to say that the collapse of the USSR brought about the end of the Cold War? Don't get me wrong, I understand all the concessions Gorbachev was making to the West, but the Cold War was still on-going at that time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Since 1989 there was certainly no Cold War anymore. I know that some say that 1989 Malta summit between Gorbachev and Bush was the end of the Cold War. Others say it was the collapse of Berlin Wall in November 1989. But not 1991. Olegwiki (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You make a good point Oleg, didn't consider that as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Wiki Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article, not a Forum or Soapbox to espouse your personal political beliefs, Anon-IP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
On August 21st, Dmitriy Komar and 2 more were killed and several people were wounded by gunfire; while they were standing against a IFV division (and soldiers of course); AND Wikipedia says that they could be MISTAKENLY were shot. Please correct the line, do not be funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The soldiers were mostly shooting in the air, ricochet is a possible cause of death. There was an investigation but no soldier or officer was brought to trial. One of the man was chushed by an IFV. Olegwiki (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Having just seen the Tagesschau of the coup days (it's the main German news show and makes old news shows available online after 20 years, link), it was mentioned, that the Kazakh SSR has opposed the coup attempt as well as Moldova and the three baltic republics (and RSFSR of course). Is there anything more to support and include this? --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
This article should be renamed "August Coup" based on Wikipedia common name policy.
The coup d'etat is commonly termed the "August Coup", by Wikipedia common name policy this should be the name of the article.--R-41 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
suggest greater investigation into social dynamics
I would like to raise an issue for discussion in the context of the present article. The article states that the coup collapsed in two days. It also implies that the main reason that the coup collapsed was that there was a campaign of civil disobbedience, primarily in Moskow.
As a sociologist (BA from Temple University, Philadelphia), I am suspicious of a statement that attribute far-reaching consequences to the action of such a geographically and numerically limited group.
The article mentions that the coup occurred in the context of a struggle over the future of the USSR institutionally. Yeltsin had attempted to redefine the Russian SSR as an independent state. There had then been a referendum in which a majority of the population, and a majority of the republics, had voted in favor of retaining the USSR as a socialist state. There was concern-- which proved well-founded-- that the New Union Treaty was a prelude to the disollution of the USSR, against the will expressed in the August referendum. Clearly broader social forces wereat work here. Which forces did the coup leadership hope to attract to their side? Which forces came to their aid?
My understanding is that a key piece of the anti-coup front were the Donbas miners, who if I remember correctly struck in response to the coup. I also remember, however, that their leadership offered a deal to the coup leaders: the miners' support of the hard-liners' agenda in exchange for a repudiation of the coup by its leadership...
I believe a fuller examination of these dynamics would greatly strengthen the article.
Actually, everything was decided within these fateful three days in Moscow. The miners in Donbas, etc., did not have time to influence the events.Oleg-ch (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does boxed summary list Gorbachev with the conspirators?
The boxed summary at the top right of the page shows all the pro-coup forces and persons in the left-hand column and all the anti-coup people in the right-hand column. The part I don't understand: Why is the name of Mikhail Gorbachev in the same column with the people who tried to make him resign, and who cut off his lines of communication? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Violation of the rules of WP:Neutrality. The article describes the side of the winner of the democratic forces of Boris Yeltsin. The members of the GKChP were the first state leaders of the USSR and the KGB had the right to arrest any head of government of the USSR, if it threatens the integrity of the state. GKChP members were acting in accordance with the Constitution of the USSR. As the leading role of the Communist party of the Soviet Union spelled out in the Constitution of the USSR, article 6 of the. Нетрально article should be written so: Armed confrontation between two verticals of power Union of the USSR and the Republic of the RSFSR -- CPI-RUS (talk) 16:12, 03 September 2012 (UTC)
They did a poor job then, since the coup and its failure was likely the final crack in the backbone of the Soviet Union. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
A coup attempt is a coup attempt is a coup attempt. It was against Gorbachev, not Yeltsin. That Yeltsin "won" anything is a product of subsequent circumstance. Novel attempt to declare constitutionality, though. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How many Beer Hall Putsches have there been? One. How many coups have there been in August? More (e.g.). I see nothing wrong with using the term "August Coup" to refer to this particular putsch when the context of Soviet political history is already established, but a title doesn't have that context; it must stand on its own. That being the case, I must agree with IIO and say that the proposed form is insufficient to meet WP:CRITERIA. ╠╣uw[talk] 09:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per IIO, it should be a disambiguation page -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support per COMMONNAME and a very convincing row of precedent adduced by Yerevanci. Disambiguation with what? -- Ynot? 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
None of them is refereed to as "August Coup" --Երևանցիtalk 00:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Support Common name and not in any way rendered ambiguous by other coups happening to have occurred in August but not referred to by that title; this is not a descriptive title but its name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Some people don't want to understand this. --Երևանցիtalk 03:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Leaning towards Oppose - The methodology presented in the move request is flawed. "August Coup" is a proper noun. When searching, you should use quotes around the term. "1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt" is a descriptive name. When searching, it shouldn't be put in quotes. I don't know what the best name is for the article, but the methodology in the original request is flawed. You cannot compare search results using quotes around a proper noun with search results using quotes around a descriptive name. I'm not sure what a fair methodology would be. But I would guess that if you asked most English speaking people what the August Coup was, they would not know that it was the attempted overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev. The descriptive title, "1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt" is self-explanatory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sure, let's search "1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt" without quotes. It only has some 6,700 results, while "August Coup" has over 20,000. Also, Russians use the latter one. Self-explanatory or not, the term August Coup is more common. --Երևանցիtalk 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, that's not a valid comparison because "1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt" is a descriptive title and "August Coup" is a proper noun. The issue with this comparison is not simply about quotes, but by the fact that with descriptive titles, other terms mean the same thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be "Duh!" to you and me, but that's not what the OP said. In any case, how do you know that a proper noun is better than a descriptive title without objective, scientific criteria that anyone can measure? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
see WP:COMMONNAME. Don't the 20,000+ results in Google Books make it a more common term? --Երևանցիtalk 01:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The tacit rule is that we always use something's actual name, if it has one, and only use a descriptive title of our own making when things don't have common names. That unspoken rule is a foundation of common names and well serves naturalness and recognizability. There are very few exceptions, and almost always because the actual title appears to break neutrality in an unusual way. That's why this discussion has me scratching my head a bit. This has a name. We're using a descriptive title. Why? Now it appears that fundamental starting point seems to be overlooked in this discussion and argued against above. We need a title to tell us what it is if it's a descriptive title. We don't if it has a name because... that's its name and people searching for something by name already know what it's called. This discussion appears to exist in some article titling twilight zone where up is down and black is white.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@Yerevanci: No, because "more" is a term of comparison. More compared to what? Nobody has been able to provide any objective criteria in order to make a comparison. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed name is way too ambiguous for a typical reader to guess the subject. Of course Russians would not specificy the nation and year, but most readers are not Russian. Adjusting titles to maximise capture of google searches is not desirable. Google is a tool that adapts to us, not vice versa. "August coup" seems to imply that there are coups of other months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
False. The term "August Coup" is specifically used for the 1991 Soviet coup attempt, no need to make up stories, just look through the Google Books results. A large number of Western, non-Russian sources also call it the August Coup. I simply said that Russians also call it August Coup, don't distort my words. --Երևանցիtalk 06:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
My contribution to this is not specifically directed to you or your words. I am not questioning that anyone using "August coup" would be referring to this topic, but noting that this term obviously assumes existing familiarity with the subject. I don't think this assumed familiarity is appropriate for a formal title from an international perspective. Perhaps policy doesn't describe this well, but I am definitely of the opinion that reliability and formality are interconnected, and that for serious topics a more formal title is appropriate. I also ask you to consider the youth of Borneo who come across the title. "August coup" doesn't even sound like a specific thing, and only experienced Wikipedians will understand the significance of the capital C. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Fuhghettaboutit's comment, it seems the question is whether the topic has a name (and then if that name is "August Coup"). In light of the comparatively high (x~25) number of hits for the descriptive terms as noted immediately above, and looking through some the links I found, I'm not convinced that August Coup is a name that is standardized, even if segmentally common. Close call, though. I would support a move to 1991 Soviet coup, per WP:PRECISION. ENeville (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Weak support This is a proper name used by historians, and it appears to be the common name as well.. After looking through the first five pages of Google results, I'm not seeing any reference to other coups that occurred in August. I might be on the fence if the proposal was for August coup. On the other hand, we tend to use sentence case for historical events, such as the Dreyfus affair and Cuban missile crisis. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
the current title is descriptive which is not appropriate for a topic which has a name (not even a single WP:OTHERSTUFF counter-example has been provided to refute this claim that it's standard practice in WP to use descriptive titles only for articles about topics without names)
many precedents listed; (unchallenged)
proposed title is the proper name used by historians (supported by Google Books results)
The Oppose arguments are:
the proposed title fails WP:CRITERIA and needs to have Russia/Soviet in the title (claim without substantiation);
per "IIO" (what is IIO?);
"not at all clear" (to whom? - the title only needs to be clear to those familiar with the topic, and this is what they call it; similar titles were provided);
methodology is flawed because search counts on descriptive title are meaningless (okay, but the main point is the proposed title is the most commonly used name for this topic used in reliable sources - so why use a descriptive title at all?);
"Proposed name is too ambiguous for typical reader to guess the topic" - true, but this objection is not based in policy, recognizability applies to those familiar with the topic, not the "typical reader";
an expression of doubt that "August coup" is this topic's name (It's definitely a name used - so unless there is evidence that another name is more commonly used to refer to this coup, then that name should be used. But this is no argument to retain the descriptive title).
The oppose arguments are in the majority (so far), but they are extraordinarily weak. If I were closing this discussion right now, I wouldn't see how to give any of the oppose arguments any weight. The support side, in contrast, is well found in policy and practice. Community consensus clearly supports this move. --B2C 06:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
IIO is, of course, the esteemed In ictu oculi. It's a per user, not a per policy. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh! Well, IIO's argument is the unsubstantiated claim that the proposed title fails WP:CRITERIA and would need to have Russia/Soviet in the title to meet WP:CRITERIA. Seems like pure WP:JDLI to me. --B2C 04:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Labelling of anothers contribution as JDLI says that you don't/can't bother seriously considering what others are saying and why. IIO's !vote is obviously not "I just don't like it". There is something wrong with the suggest rename, and difficulty in expressing the problem in Wikipedia-policy terms is a failing of policy. "August Coup" feels like a catchy title that book publishers would be attracted to, of course (book buying audiences are fairly narrow). But what about reference works? I think virtually all older people in the educated world are familiar with this topic (it changed not just the Soviet Union, but the world), and of these people, apart from the book owners, I think "August Coup" is not a recognizable title for a recognizable topic, and so it should not be used. I suggest the consideration of other options, incorporating the vernacular name "August Coup" with sufficient additional information, such as Russian/Soviet/1991, to enable wider recognition (more or less, exactly as per IIO). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
you think Wikipedia should use descriptive titles?!? The coup has a name that is widely used in academics. Recognizable or not, it is still a very accepted term and as long as I know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pop culture handbook. If someone doesn't recognize it, they can click on it and read the first sentence. --Երևանցիtalk 06:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic needs a more descriptive title than "August coup". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This statement too is pure JDLI. We don't decide between two titles based on what the dozen or so self-selected editors think each title should or should not be on a case-by-case basis. That's the point of WP:JDLI. "Wikipedia is not a business deal. It is an encyclopedia. Well-argued statements do beat personal, subjective tastes.". We decide between two titles based on which of two titles meets WP:CRITERIA better than the other. IIO's !vote ironically plays lip service to this notion, by referencing WP:CRITERIA, but says absolutely nothing substantive about why or how either title meets criteria better. That's why it's pure JDLI. It reflects pure subjective opinion, as does yours. If you don't want your !votes labeled as JDLI, then stop expressing your opinion and start presenting sound arguments. --B2C 16:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, you do allude to a sound oppose argument above, though I had to read your comment a second time to see it. This is how I understand the argument:
Most "older people in the educated world" are familiar with this topic/event (a conjecture but it's reasonable to presume is true unless challenged)
Most of these "older people" would not recognize "August Coup", though experts on the topic would (another conjecture, but sounds plausible)
The Recognizability criterion is: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize.
Since "older people in the educated world" familiar with this event, although not necessarily an expert in, will not recognize "August Coup", it does not meet the recognizability criterion.
And maybe that's what IIO tried to express as well. But how could anyone know? Certainly not from IIO's words.
Also, I reject your claim: "difficulty in expressing the problem in Wikipedia-policy terms is a failing of policy". It is quite simple to express "the problem" in WP policy terms, as I just demonstrated. Further, when it is expressed in WP policy terms as I just did, you are forced to present the underlying premises of the arguments, so others can evaluate whether they are reasonable or need to be challenged. Vague allusions to such argument are not helpful or productive; they are JDLI expressions. --B2C 16:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If the above is an accurate presentation of the argument that the proposed title does not meet the recognizability criterion, I challenge the first premise. I think the few who are familiar with the failed coup (not those who just vaguely recall something about it, maybe, if pressed), perhaps those who read this NY Times article, would recognize "August Coup". --B2C 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in that article suggests that "August Coup" is a good title for a top level article in an international encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. "August Coup" communicates very little information and is too short to be a concise title. A title must communicate something about the subject, and in a case like this, that would require at least a year and a nation. Omnedon (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Man you gotta be kidding me. Just look at the number of coups that don't have years in them. Don't hesitate, look at the Google Books results and see that "August Coup" is the academic name for the event. --Երևանցիtalk 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I think you've got to be kidding me. I clicked on your first link and the second result was titled "Russian Journal: During the August Coup of '91". The fourth is "Russia at the Barricades: Eyewitness Accounts of the August 1991 Coup". The seventh is "The August 28, 1987 coup: public perceptions in a time of continuing crisis", which is not even the same coup. What do you mean by "the academic name"? A title needs to communicate something about the subject. "August coup" could refer to a coup in any year in any nation. Omnedon (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You, like other oppose voters are singing the same exact song. "August Coup" is not used to refer to any coup that took place in the month of August, but specifically to THIS coup. Please, don't cherry-pick. Why don't you talk about Gorbachev's book which doesn't mention neither "Soviet/Russian" or "1991"? Look at other books too. Again, this coup has a name that is accepted by historians, whether recognizable or not, it is still the most widely accepted name for the events that took place in the Soviet Union in August 1991. --Երևանցիtalk 22:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is, you provided a link for Google Book results. On the first page of results alone, there is a book about an entirely different coup, and two others that include the year in the title, so I'm not convinced by those results. In addition, in some cases book titles will assume a certain readership; here we need a title that is at least minimally descriptive. You seem to be very confrontational in your approach here, which is not helpful. Omnedon (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The text there is slippery-slope fallacy decorated with a few tautological statements. And it ignores the question of what is good for readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
what is good for readers? The point is that descriptive titles are arbitrary and often groundless, while academic terms are intended for encyclopedias. --Երևանցիtalk 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the current title arbitrary or groundless? Can you please show me some academic examples where "August Coup" is used to introduce the topic, not already in the context of the late Soviet Union? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so you're reading my comment and choosing which part of it is good to consider? What about "academic terms are intended for encyclopedias"? I didn't say this title is or isn't, but many titles are, indeed, arbitrary. I don't really get your question. Why should they talk about the coup outside "the context of the late Soviet Union"? The coup was in the Soviet Union at last. But if you're that picky, just look through the Google Books results.
Gorbachev's book's title is August Coup: Three Days that Shook the World. It doesn't have the word "Soviet"/"Russian" or "1991", does it? It was published in English.
Gorbachev, being centrally involved, would be expected to use a title reflecting an insider. Other books would similarly want to be perceived as telling the story from the special position, or else why buy the book? Wikipedia, on the other hand, should not be presenting insider's stories. The other two links do not look like sufficiently reliable sources to consider as decisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In this specific case, I think it entirely plausible, even to-be-expected, and true in my personal case, that someone could know and have interest in the August 1991 Moscow Coup, and not recognize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Coup as being that topic. Unrecognizable, to some interested, passingly familiar, readers. Therefore, I consider this rename suggestion actively unhelpful.
This is not to say that I support the current title, 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt. I would drop the "attempt" as excessively precise, or as imprecise noting that the coup actually happened. "Attempt" is usually taken to mean an action taken that immediately failed.
I sympathize with Yerevanci, in that "August Coup" is frequently used within texts, although not as a formal introductory title. It should definitely appear in the lede as an alternative name, as it does now. Would August 1991 Moscow Coup be acceptable, containing "August" & "Coup" while offering more information to create broad recognizability? I don't like "Soviet" as it is an inaccurate abbreviation. "Russian" seems a little inaccurate, as the coup was not against Russia. "Moscow" might be OK, as events happened in, or were connected to, Moscow. Important things happened in Foros, Ukraine, but not enough to lend the name.
If you can find most commonly used basis in reliable sources for that name, yes, acceptable, quite.
But, absent such finding, I'm curious. Please describe in what real or hypothetical context you believe having the title be "August Coup" would be unhelpful to readers, but "August 1991 Moscow Coup" would be helpful.
For example, I just went to "what links here" for this article and randomly (not cherry-picking) found this snippet at Kazakhstan#Independence:
Following the August 1991 aborted coup attempt in Moscow...
So readers of that article, at least, are given context by the writers of that article, as is appropriate, and the actual article title is overwritten simply by the linked word "coup". So in such cases the title is totally irrelevant to helping readers. Where might it be helpful? --B2C 16:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not unfamiliar with the subject, but the term "August Coup" was not recognizable to me as referring to that event. Given that I'm seemingly not alone in this, I'd have to say it's insufficient to meet the recognizability requirement of WP:CRITERIA. That unrecognizability may be why other encyclopedias sometimes refer to it as more than just "August Coup" – e.g., "Soviet Coup of 1991" at Britannica. Basically, minus the context of Soviet political history, there does seem to be reasonable doubt that a reader (even one familiar with the event) will know what the proposed title by itself refers to. That there have been other coups or coup attempts in August (e.g.) also muddies matters...
That said, I agree with SmokeyJoe that the current title can and should be improved; my preference would be something along the lines of August 1991 Soviet coup, but I'd be interested to hear what others prefer. ╠╣uw[talk] 10:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you and SmokeyJoe that a better title can be found. It's just that "August coup" is too short and generic. Omnedon (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(sarcasm) Yes, let's just have a JDLI festival: see what everyone prefers, and the one with the most votes wins! Wouldn't that be fair and wonderful? Then next month we could do it again with a different group of people and different preferences. Let's just do that every month, for every title! Woo hoo! --B2C 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Born2cycle: Posts that merely inject sarcasm and attitude are not helpful to these discussions. You're entirely free to disagree with other editors, but (as you've so repeatedly been instructed before) please do so civilly and respect others' positions. ╠╣uw[talk] 23:50, 2 September 2013 (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.
Really, that this ultimately led to dissolution of the Soviet Union and ascendency of the Russian Republic in its place does not make the failed putsch a conflict between the two. I've restored the original text prior to attempts to "neutralize" it--which attempts confused origin and purpose with a subsequent symptom and result. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)