Misplaced Pages

Talk:Great Game: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:31, 28 October 2016 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,765 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:The Great Game/Archive 1. (BOT)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:34, 18 August 2024 edit undoLlywelynII (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions90,637 edits →1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement 
(37 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPMILHIST|South-Asian=y}}
⚫ {{WikiProject India}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=C|importance=top}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Central Asia|class=C|importance=top}}
⚫ {{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=high}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes|physgeo=yes}}
{{British English}} {{British English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
⚫ {{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=high}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=top}}
⚫ {{WikiProject History|importance=high}}
⚫ {{WikiProject India|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|British=yes|Russian=yes|South-Asian=y}}
⚫ {{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes|physgeo=yes}}
{{WikiProject Geography |importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=top}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=top}}
}} }}
{{archive box | auto=long}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:The Great Game/Archive |archiveprefix=Talk:Great Game/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|header={{Talkarchivenav}} |header={{automatic archive navigator}}
|age=2196 |age=2160|<!--90 days-->
|index=no
|minkeepthreads=4 |minkeepthreads=4
|maxarchsize=100000 |maxarchsize=100000
|numberstart=1 |numberstart=1
|archivebox=yes
|box-advert=yes
}} }}
<!--Bot in hours: 24 * 30.5 * 12 ~= 8,784 (12 months since section edit) -->


== Recent edits == == Tournament of Shadows? ==
The Article comes to Redirect for The Russian Tournament of Shadows, which is the a different Term for the same conflict, however the article fails to mention the term, however It in Fact used to is there any reason for the Term to be Removed? ] (]) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
:Hello, we are required under to use Use Common Recognizable Names ], of which The Russian Tournament of Shadows is not. Additionally, there is no source Russian historical document that uses the term Tournament of Shadows. The redirect should be deleted, however that is a difficult process, which I will now embark on. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 19:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
⚫ ::That redirect no longer exists. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


== Removal of cited sources and sections ==
Hello ], there are some comments on your Talk page about Misplaced Pages policy, and I offer the following comments regarding your recent edits:
*Etymology relates to the derivation and meaning of an individual word, not the use of several words in a term. However, I am not too concerned. You may find that other editors will change it in the future.
*The second paragraph. Does the cited source specifically claim that The Great Game ended with the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente? Yes or no? (Here is a copy of it - little to do with Afghanistan: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/angrusen.asp) We have Morgan supported by Gebb stating that it ended with the Joint Pamirs Boundary Commission of 1895. There will be other sources that support that. If not, then we need to amend it. If yes, then after "the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907" we say "however, other authors have stated that The Great Game came to a close with the with agreement of the Joint Pamirs Boundary Commission in 1895." (I have some more material to post on that.) Else, it is removed into the body of the text.
*Paragraph 3: Is the US the dominant global power? Who is actually saying that (apart from the US politicians)? Citation please. "The fall of the British Empire" - who did it fall to?
*The 5 new dot points under Chronology - what is their purpose? There is no context. We are trying to demonstrate what, exactly? If we can articulate that, then we should say it in the body of the article. What I really need right now is an editor (anybody watching?) who has some knowledge of the events and to succinctly develop the expansion of the Russian Empire eastwards, with citations, and how that would lead towards an impact on the British over Afghanistan. I would suggest that an event with a date of 1582, to which the British would respond in 1839, is completely out of scope.
⚫ Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#DCDCDC;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 09:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
*You appear not to have see this talk page and I will await your response. <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#DCDCDC;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 21:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it . The major contributor to these chances was ] ()
==Scope==
# The change in style from short citations in a notes section supported by long citations in a references section to inline full citations.
This article has now had its scope narrowed to focus on the referent, The Great Game, which is defined as Anglo-Russian rivalry in Central Asia during the 19th Century. It now has a proposed start date and an end date, with linkages to key documents in archive. Unfortunately, the article mentions Central Asia - and the Khanate of Bukhara in particular - very little. It did not even mention in the body of the article that in 1842, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Stoddart and Captian Arthur Conolly were beheaded in Bukhara for spying. It has focused on a series of military engagements in Afghanistan, which although are important, appears to be a simple copy-and-paste from other articles. I recommend that future development be directed more towards Central Asia, and Bukhara in particular. I intend on providing further material shortly. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#DCDCDC;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
# The removal from the lead "{{green|In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has continued in use to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area}}" and the sections that that sentence supports.
It seems to me that removing the 20th and 21st century sections is a form of OR as many modern sources have used the term "The Great Game" for the continuing involvement on great powers and regional powers in the area. -- ] (]) 09:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
:The scope of the article is defined within the article. The article is able to ] expert ] sources which other editors can ]. The article ] exists for the purposes that you describe. That material does not belong here and with this article at 75kb and with ] there is no room for it here. ] ] 09:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


::Any thoughts of the change in style of the in-line citations?
:You've just changed the British Empire article to suggest that the Great Game was focused solely on Afghanistan. This claim is repeated at the top of this article - something I'm sure a number of historians would disagree with. However, above, you say ''this'' article should broaden its scope to cover Central Asia and focus on Bokhara (presumably Khiva and Samarkand as well?). While I support what you say above and welcome the proposal, some of your edits don't match up with what you've said. ] (]) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
:::'''''' Your statement is not exactly true, is it? The article uses both styles - refer to the inline calls on the "Further reading" section. There was no issue with the change of citation style when the article was redeveloped. I do not see what the issue is now - it meets ]
::Hello ], thanks for your interest in this topic, which has had the regions of Khiva and Bokhara included from what was here before I commented, and everything here is cited which was not the case before. Time was my modifier; when I said that about Khiva and Bokhara above, I then went on a journey to ascertain what I could learn about them from cited sources, giving weight to the works of noted historians and not the work of a journalist. (Please be aware that some writers do not accept that Afghanistan is in Central Asia - they define CA as the steppes and do not include the mountainous regions.) I had expected to find a vast amount on this "Great Game in Central Asia" that so many authors allude to without further defining - spies, ambassadors, intrigue, move and counter move. What I found was that Britain's "Great Game" was a plan to turn Afghanistan into a protectorate, and try to influence Khiva and Bokhara into becoming neutral buffer states. These were the only parts of "Central Asia" that Britain had an interest in - to say that Britain was seeking rivalry in "Central Asia" - which is a huge region, refer map - is not correct from my reading.
::::'{{green|refer to the inline calls on the "Further reading" section}}' which in-line calls were those? -- ] (]) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
::And it failed. Britain had no border contact with Khiva or Bokhara for most of the period, she did have border contact with them when she invaded Afghanistan and sent a couple of officers to Bukhara who were beheaded in 1842 and there was nothing Britain could do about it, and then got thrown out of Afghanistan in the same year. That is hardly rivalry with Russia in Central Asia - you can only have rivalry if you have any influence. Later, Russia annexed Khiva and Bukhara with no shots fired by Britain, and Britain invaded Afghanistan once again out of fear of Russian influence there. Clearly, Afghanistan was central to British interests, and in particularly the Herat district and its mountain passes. Would you be prepared to accept a moderation to "Afghanistan and its bordering Khanates in Central Asia" rather than the much broader "Central Asia"? (Also note that a number of authors appear to have overlooked that most of the British action during the GG was the annexation of areas that are in what is now Pakistan and India in the lead up to final control over Afghanistan.) Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
::{{green|"The scope of the article is defined within the article."}} it was previously defined within the article (see the line I quoted).
:::Hmm, I think you need to be a little bit careful about original research here: "giving weight", "what I found", "not correct from my reading" etc. It's not for us as editors to reinterpret what the sources explicitly say, nor to under-weight a source because, for example, the author happened to be a journalist as well as a historian. Hopkirk's work is quite highly rated, so it cannot just be dismissed. Conversely, from a quick skim through this article I note it closely reflects the views expressed in a single discursive essay by Yapp; ''my'' reading of that essay is that his findings are flatly contradicted by research conducted by other historians (e.g. that the Russians never made plans to invade India). I'm not sure if these are recent changes, but a single view should never be given undue prominence on Misplaced Pages.
:::'''''' It has been further defined in accord with ], based on the works of historians who are expert on the topic and not the conjecture of some journalists.
::::Hello ], no original research has been applied. I personally believe it was all a legend based on two stumbling bureaucracies and some overly excited frontier administrators, later "head office" sorted it out through agreements, and later some academics used the term TGG for something they wanted to write about. (The views of the "culture" administering the East India Company may not necessarily reflect the views of the culture in power in London.) However the sources I have used - see the Citations, I put those there - indicate otherwise and that is what is expressed. Therefore, I rebut using ] heavily as he is only one of many, and not one I particularly agree with, but you cannot easily dismiss his background. If you have work by other historians then I would be pleased to see them included here because I have redeveloped this article as a framework for others to add to, as long as they don't go off-topic.
:::::There again, you say "I personally believe", but is that the same as the historiographical consensus? You may believe that it was a "legend" - along with a certain number of historians - but the section on different interpretations refers to only two who treat the subject in this way. I'm sure there will be more, but are you representing that point of view neutrally in the context of all the historians who believe it was real? From reading widely the work of other historians it is difficult to see how the rivalry - whatever we call it - can be considered a "legend": exploration, invasion, border changes - these things all happened. Whether it was planned and co-ordinated in any meaningful way is another matter - most historical events are not - but historians invent labels for convenience (e.g. "Dark Ages", "Age of Discovery" that didn't exist at the time), regardless of inferences which may mislead the casual reader.
::::::Nonetheless, the authors cited have used the word "legend", regardless of whether we agree with that or not. That includes Hopkirk in The Making of Afghanistan, ''The Myth of the Great Game''.


::"The New Great Game" was a title of a book it was not a term in general use, and such a fork in content is a POV fork.
:::On points of detail: I think this comes down to the map as much as the chronology. Most historians agree this historical episode ended in Afghanistan, but its origins are debated. Some historians would suggest British interference in the Caucasus triggered Russian moves, some include British/Russian influence on Persia. What is certain is that the map of Central Asia in the nineteenth century was much more complicated than it is now, so to an apply anachronistic interpretation of the geography is misleading for the reader. For example, you refer to British annexation of independent territories in what is now Pakistan and India. This northward push was certainly part of this historical episode, as was the southward movement of the Russian border from the Caspian forts, so the article should capture it. However, these territories were not khanates, nor were they part of Afghanistan so they wouldn't fit under your definition. Politically they were not in Central Asia, but geographically they weren't squarely in Southern Asia either.
:::'''''' A quick read of the Misplaced Pages article and its references or a Google Search will show that "The New Great Game" is more than just the name of a book. It is not my point of view, but you knew that.
::::I do not agree on the Caucasus nor Peria. It is after the two wars that we see even the slightest interest in Bukhara by the British with a firm direction to set up trade. I entirely agree with you on the map and the annexations in the Indian Subcontinent, which is what makes this so complex. The majority of historians define TGG as being "in central asia", yet it certainly does include southern asia, and both Ingram references support that. (Ingram is two citations by the way, one in a book and one in a journal, and offers a superb background - a true geopolitical context as to why. But you need to read further into the articles that I cited on the British Empire page which need to be read through to get their core - it took me weeks, it is unclear how you did it overnight.) However, if I were to include this area in the definition it might be quickly changed by some passing editor at some time in the future, so there may be no point.
:::::Again, you're entitled to a view on whether activity in the Caucasus and Persia prompted this, but whether you agree or not, some historians ''do'' believe it was relevant. If nothing else it is relevant context, setting the shape of the diplomatic landscape before all this began.
::::::That is fine, as long as they can cite an original document that indicates that this starts the Great Game. If they cannot, then it is only the conjecture of the author and has no place here.
:::::As to your second point - you're right - I haven't read all the sources you provided overnight. I skimmed a few of them and referred back to existing knowledge from having read many books on the British Empire. Obviously I'll defer to your in-depth reading into the subject, but on the broader point of whether there was such a thing and where/when (which is why I came looking after your edit to the BE article) I think we need to acknowledge that it went wider than what is now Afghanistan - my focus was simply on whether the sources you used focused on Afghanistan alone or "Central Asia".
::::::Part of this issues is, as you have said, are the maps. Lines drawn on maps are something the European powers did - the main concern of the Britain and Russia. It could be argued that there was no Afghanistan, there was a collection of tribes that paid tribute to various rulers, some of them to Kabul and some of them much further afield. I think the new lead sentence more closely reflects a wider view, certainly a more accurate one with the inclusion of Southern Asia, and I thank you for your guidance here.


::If size is really concern and not a proxy for a POV that the game ended with the Russian and British empires, then we can solve that either shaving off some of the details, or by moving some of the content out into subsiduary articles. However I do not believe that necessary, I have just checked the size of 20th, 21st, and the Chronology sections that were removed from this article and they came to less than 17k (of which the Chronology section made up about a third of that total).
:::So where do we go from here? I think we have space in this article to elaborate on all the various interpretations, and I see that there has been some attempt to cover the different angles. However, for summary articles such as the British Empire, a generalisation such as "Central Asia" is concise and less open to challenge. For the first line of this article I would suggest something very similar to your proposal: ''"The Great Game" is a term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central Asia.'' ] (]) 22:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
::-- ] (]) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
::::I am happy with your change on the British Empire, my real point there was that this was not a Eurasia-wide event, and that is a position that you have supported. I will amend the lead to ''"The Great Game" is a term used by historians to describe a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the nineteenth century between Britain and Russia over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and Southern Asia.'' and see how long it lasts in that form. For further development, I have taken the content of this article from 30kb of largely uncited material to 65kb of cited material and am approaching exhaustion. I have even tracked down scans of the works of the people involved back in the 1830-1890s. As I have said above, I would be pleased for others to now further develop it. I will next read the novel, Kim, to ascertain exactly what Kipling was talking about and if that stacks up to some of the claims made by some historians. Regards, and thanks for your comments <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 23:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::Totally agree it was not a Eurasia-wide event. Hopkirk does cover Russian movements from the Caucasus up to the Chinese border, but that's a separate and wider historical development.
:::::I respect that you've expanded and cited lots of material, but I'd urge some caution over the weighting of sources. For that reason I've made some slight tweaks to the presentation style of the section on different interpretations to make it clear that it's not necessarily the consensus view. I would like to help further, but I am a little time poor at the moment. ] (]) 21:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::I also. When I first came here, there was not much more than uncited blather that lead the reader into thinking that there was some kind of cold war with Britain and Russia not talking to each other and a giant chess game going on with war imminent at any moment. From my reading, this does not appear to be the case. I have expanded the article to cover a wider view, but there is still much more to be done here. The work by Chakravarty - from Khyber to Oxus - is a collection of citations and quotes from original documents from that time. Someone could spend weeks producing a fine article from it with original quotes and British Foreign Office letters going between London, St Petersburg, Calcutta and Kabul. However, I think I am drawing to a close here. Thanks for the recent tidy-up. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 08:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I sometimes think Misplaced Pages is heading towards being 'complete'. Then I look around and realise how much more there is to do! Keep up the good work. ] (]) 21:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks, and agreed! You get a feeling of some satisfaction then later on you have a rethink about what something may have meant or some new material comes to light or you read yet another point of view. We now have Martin J. Bayly's 2016 work stating that Anglo-Afghan relations during this period has been too focused on Anglo-Russian rivalry and The Great Game, and that historians should stop repeating the work of earlier historians on this matter - the fun never ends! Please maintain your vigilance over the ]. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 09:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


:::The Game did not end with the Russian and British Empires and I encourage you to actually read the article. It ended long before that, so say the historians. I suggest that you await other editors points of view before attempting hiving things off elsewhere. We are not alone here. ] ] 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
== Anglo-Russian collusion over Central Asia ==


::::This article states that "{{green|Some authors believe that the Great Game 1907, Another that it was trailing off not long after that time, and another with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917}}" depends what you mean by long before that. However that is not the point, can we agree to drop the size of the article as a reason for not including the text post World War II? -- ] (]) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello All, I have started a controversial section titled: Anglo-Russian collusion over Central Asia. I understand that this takes a completely opposite position to what has been traditionally proposed by the meaning of "The Great Game", however it is an important subtopic. If anyone has anything more to add on this subject - especially citing original sources from the time, for example Northbrook's two letters to key people in the administration of India - we would be pleased to receive them. I have come across correspondence from the Russian ambassador on this same theme but overlooked it, and I will now attempt to track it down for inclusion. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
:::::A few observations. First, with reference to these disambiguation ] I think it is right that this article focuses on the well-established historical usage - as described in the scope of the article. Secondary usage is rightly relegated to a secondary position in the sub section addressing "Other uses...". However, I do agree with PBS that the fact that the term has continued to be used (and, indeed, that the article has a section on this) ought to be referenced in the introduction. It is maybe slightly misleading to suggest that it didn't continue to resonate in the years after the 'Great Game' ended. A single short sentence would be sufficient.
:::::Secondly: while it is well sourced, the section on "Other uses" could be worded more neutrally. It is currently rather dismissive of other usages.
:::::Thirdly, and conversely, PBS's proposed wording is perhaps overplaying the significance of the continued usage of the term - so maybe undue weighting. However, this could be amended relatively easily and I see no reason why it shouldn't form the basis of a reference in the intro. ] (]) 20:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
::::::I concur with your observations. ] ] 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


== Recent edits == == Map ==
Is the map of modern Central Asia really that instructive? The article also includes information about Persia. Wouldn't it be more useful to use a map from the time with borders representing the period mentioned? ] (]) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


==1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement==
Hello ] and ]. Nothing gives me more pleasure right now than watching two editors who are passionate about this subject voicing a difference of opinion - I swear we have finally breathed some life into this article, which for too long atrophied. However, I fear that we are on the edge of an edit war which may lead to some unpleasant impacts, so I gave you both a ping. On the one hand the term is used predominately by historians, however the article contains citations from some strategic analysts (geostrategists if you like) and also journalists (who use it to the point of cliche). I will leave it to both of you to form a compromise; most Misplaced Pages articles are a compromise of differing opinions, which over time evolve to be closer to the mark. Regards, <span style="font-family:Calibri;background:#C0C0C0;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:#696969 0px 3px 3px;">&nbsp;]&nbsp;&#124;]&nbsp;</span> 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Presently, the article includes ]. , there never was a signed accord. Instead, the agreement was made by two separate letters, one from Granville on 17 October 1872 and a separate one from Gorchakov on 31 January 1873. The second letter more or less established an agreement but only in concert with the other letter. No joint paper was ever signed, and the letters that were exchanged were dated O.S. separately by the Russians.
:::my point is that it is not a term invented by historians. It is the common usage by the general public (eg Kipling) & diplomats of the late 19th century. It's the difference between: a) ''the Korean war is what historians call the war of 1950....'' versus b) ''The Korean war was a war fought in 1950...'' I recommend version b. The goal should be to highlight the actual event in the opening, not highlight the historiography. ] (]) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

::::If the article title was descriptive like "The Korean War" or "]" then we wouldn't need to explain what it means or who uses it. However, since "The Great Game" is a quote and it is used primarily - today - by historians, not the general public, then we do. (If you used the term in the UK today without any other qualification then most people would think you were talking about football.) And, as User:William Harris has highlighted above, some historians reject the term entirely, so to present it as an ''agreed'' term for this historical episode is misleading. I suppose the opening line should actually say: ''"The Great Game" is a term used by '''some''' historians.'' ] (]) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Also a bit odd not to mention the British side of the negotiation was Granville and to link to his article, which entirely omits this discussion and instead highlights an 1871 agreement with Shuvalov that ''this'' article currently omits.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:34, 18 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Game article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAfghanistan Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBritish Empire High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCentral Asia Top‑importance
WikiProject iconGreat Game is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / British / European / Russian & Soviet / South Asia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
South Asian military history task force
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Military / Physical geography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconGeography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Tournament of Shadows?

The Article comes to Redirect for The Russian Tournament of Shadows, which is the a different Term for the same conflict, however the article fails to mention the term, however It in Fact used to is there any reason for the Term to be Removed? Sir James H. Westwood (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, we are required under to use Use Common Recognizable Names WP:UCRN, of which The Russian Tournament of Shadows is not. Additionally, there is no source Russian historical document that uses the term Tournament of Shadows. The redirect should be deleted, however that is a difficult process, which I will now embark on. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That redirect no longer exists. Regards,  William Harris |talk  19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of cited sources and sections

I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it in March 2015‎. The major contributor to these chances was William Harris (diff)

  1. The change in style from short citations in a notes section supported by long citations in a references section to inline full citations.
  2. The removal from the lead "In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has continued in use to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area" and the sections that that sentence supports.

It seems to me that removing the 20th and 21st century sections is a form of OR as many modern sources have used the term "The Great Game" for the continuing involvement on great powers and regional powers in the area. -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the article is defined within the article. The article is able to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. The article The New Great Game exists for the purposes that you describe. That material does not belong here and with this article at 75kb and with WP:SIZERULE there is no room for it here. William Harris • (talk) • 09:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Any thoughts of the change in style of the in-line citations?
Your statement is not exactly true, is it? The article uses both styles - refer to the inline calls on the "Further reading" section. There was no issue with the change of citation style when the article was redeveloped. I do not see what the issue is now - it meets WP:CITE
'refer to the inline calls on the "Further reading" section' which in-line calls were those? -- PBS (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
"The scope of the article is defined within the article." it was previously defined within the article (see the line I quoted).
It has been further defined in accord with WP:SCOPE, based on the works of historians who are expert on the topic and not the conjecture of some journalists.
"The New Great Game" was a title of a book it was not a term in general use, and such a fork in content is a POV fork.
A quick read of the Misplaced Pages article and its references or a Google Search will show that "The New Great Game" is more than just the name of a book. It is not my point of view, but you knew that.
If size is really concern and not a proxy for a POV that the game ended with the Russian and British empires, then we can solve that either shaving off some of the details, or by moving some of the content out into subsiduary articles. However I do not believe that necessary, I have just checked the size of 20th, 21st, and the Chronology sections that were removed from this article and they came to less than 17k (of which the Chronology section made up about a third of that total).
-- PBS (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The Game did not end with the Russian and British Empires and I encourage you to actually read the article. It ended long before that, so say the historians. I suggest that you await other editors points of view before attempting hiving things off elsewhere. We are not alone here. William Harris • (talk) • 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This article states that "Some authors believe that the Great Game 1907, Another that it was trailing off not long after that time, and another with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917" depends what you mean by long before that. However that is not the point, can we agree to drop the size of the article as a reason for not including the text post World War II? -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
A few observations. First, with reference to these disambiguation guidelines I think it is right that this article focuses on the well-established historical usage - as described in the scope of the article. Secondary usage is rightly relegated to a secondary position in the sub section addressing "Other uses...". However, I do agree with PBS that the fact that the term has continued to be used (and, indeed, that the article has a section on this) ought to be referenced in the introduction. It is maybe slightly misleading to suggest that it didn't continue to resonate in the years after the 'Great Game' ended. A single short sentence would be sufficient.
Secondly: while it is well sourced, the section on "Other uses" could be worded more neutrally. It is currently rather dismissive of other usages.
Thirdly, and conversely, PBS's proposed wording is perhaps overplaying the significance of the continued usage of the term - so maybe undue weighting. However, this could be amended relatively easily and I see no reason why it shouldn't form the basis of a reference in the intro. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur with your observations. William Harris • (talk) • 08:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Map

Is the map of modern Central Asia really that instructive? The article also includes information about Persia. Wouldn't it be more useful to use a map from the time with borders representing the period mentioned? Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement

Presently, the article includes the claim that this agreement was "signed" on 31 January 1873. Per the Enc. Iran., there never was a signed accord. Instead, the agreement was made by two separate letters, one from Granville on 17 October 1872 and a separate one from Gorchakov on 31 January 1873. The second letter more or less established an agreement but only in concert with the other letter. No joint paper was ever signed, and the letters that were exchanged were dated O.S. separately by the Russians.

Also a bit odd not to mention the British side of the negotiation was Granville and to link to his article, which entirely omits this discussion and instead highlights an 1871 agreement with Shuvalov that this article currently omits. — LlywelynII 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Categories: