| Revision as of 08:50, 22 July 2016 editWilliam Harris (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers36,628 edits →Historical Whitewashing vs "Conspiracy Theory" accusations← 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 |
| (92 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{onlinesource |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
| author=David Storobin |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=top}} |
|
| date=12 November 2004 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=high}} |
|
| title=Fundamentalism in Uzbekistan as a Result of Government's Policies |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|importance=top}} |
|
| org=Global Politician |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject History|importance=high}} |
|
| url=http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=229 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=high}} |
|
| archivedate=9 March 2005 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|British=yes|Russian=yes|South-Asian=y}} |
|
| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050309071524/http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=229 |
|
|
|
{{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}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=C}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject History|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WPMILHIST|class = Start |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1=no |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-4=yes |
|
|
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes |
|
|
|British=yes |
|
|
|Russian=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Russia|class=C|importance=Top|hist=yes|mil=yes|physgeo=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=C|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Colonial Empires|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archive box | auto=long |<center>]</center> }} |
|
|
{{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=8784 |
|
|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) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Citations no longer used in the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Citations no longer used in the article}} |
|
|
*{{citation|ref=none |title=The Playing Fields of Asia|url=http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/09/reviews/000109.09goodwit.html |publisher=nytimes.com|date=9 January 2000|accessdate=22 August 2012}} |
|
|
*{{citation|ref=none |title=Great Game, set and match|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/07/historybooks1 |publisher=guardian.co.uk|date=7 January 2001|accessdate=22 August 2012}} |
|
|
*{{citation|ref=none |last=Ahrari |first=Mohammed E. |last2=Beal |first2=James |date=January 1996 |title=The New Great Game in Muslim Central Asia |booktitle=McNair Paper 47 |publisher=Institute for National Strategic Studies and National Defense University|location=|url=http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA421825 |accessdate=27 August 2012}} |
|
|
*{{Citation|ref=none |first=Ariel |last=Cohen |date= 25 January 1996 |title=The New "Great Game": Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia |booktitle= Backgrounder #1065 |publisher=The Heritage Foundation |url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1065.cfm |accessdate=27 August 2012}} |
|
|
*{{Citation|ref=none |last=Geyer |first=Georgie Anne |date=17 February 1992 |title=U.S. Flag Waves Inside A Proud New Nation |publisher=Universal Press Syndicate |url=http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920217&slug=1476243}} |
|
|
*{{citation|ref=none |last=Meyer |first=Karl Ernest |last2=Brysac |first2= Shareen Blair |year=2006 |title=Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Asia |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0465045761 |url=http://www.amazon.com/Tournament-Shadows-Great-Empire-Central/dp/0465045766 }} |
|
|
*{{Citation|ref=none |last=Rashid |first=Ahmed |date=10 April 1997 |title=Central Asia: Power Play |journal=Far Eastern Economic Review |accessdate=27 August 2012}} |
|
|
*{{Citation|ref=none |last=Sneider |first=Daniel |date=5 May 1992 |title=New 'Great Game' In Central Asia |publisher=The Christian Science Monitor |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0505/05011.html}} |
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
|
Placed here to help other editors with some possible sources for future development. -- ] (]) 15:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chronology == |
|
|
|
|
|
I also see the issues about merging this with the Cold War. But I think that the "Chronology" section is a condensed of everything that's wrong about putting contemporary history into the article. Crimea? Really? It's almost something to be expected of the blog of a paranoid-on-the-run! This article needs some love for a change. Stop degrading it into a bar's political discussion. It'll end up locked if this keeps going on.--] (]) 04:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is this article suffering from scope creep? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Great Game was a rivalry between the British Empire and the Russian/Soviet Empire. And the article itself says until about the 1920's. So why is there a section dealing with the Cold War and other "future" events to the article? It seems like this article has some stuff tacked on to the end because there isn't anywhere else to put it...except that there must be. The Great Game is a defined period in history, and the other things that happened afterward and maybe were influenced by it don't belong in this article. ] (]) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hello ], to some degree I agree with you and the editor above. What commenced as rivalry between the British Empire and the Russian/Soviet Empire at a point in time appears to have spun out of control and now includes the US and China in the Asia/Pacific region today plus the arrangements for infrastructure development through an international bank owned by over 40 countries! (Shortly to be removed.) The "Cold War" and after sections contain some barely relevant information, and political incidents across Eurasia appears to have been merged into the Great Game. There appears to be much ] - items strung together to lead a reader down a certain path. I am open to suggestions as how this article might be reformed. Regards, ] • ] 09:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the rather extended scope of the article is based on two sources which are used to support that "In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has informally continued in its usage to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area, especially in Afghanistan and Iran/Persia." |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that "geopolitical rivalries in Central Asia" and its periphery could probably be used as an umbrella term for a long series of conflicts such as the ] (1941), the ] (1953), the ] (1978-1979), the ] (1980-1988), and whatever conflict Afghanistan gets involved in since the abolition of its monarchy in 1973, since it is pretty much in a state of crisis for over 40 years. At what point does this stop being about "The Great Game" and becomes a general ], ], and ]? ] (]) 19:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:At any one time, you will find an academic - in addition to any number of media commenters - that will say anything on any topic but that does not make it true. In both sources cited, the term Great Game is used as a metaphor and neither writer is actually contending that the Great Game continued on through history unabated. It would not be hard to find other works debunking their use of that metaphor but nobody has bothered to pursue that because that is not the direction someone wants this article to go. The scope of this article needs to be limited to Central Asia, but because no power is going to get there through either Russia or China then the only two pathways available to get into Central Asia is from southern Asia - either Iran or Pakistan/Afghanistan, which need to be included. However, that does not mean that the entire histories of those countries should be included as an indicator of "The Great Game", which is what has happened with this article. The Shar of Iran was deposed, where is the connection? None mentioned in this article and only that it happened. The Middle East and the Trans-caucus are not Southern Asia, and some contributors here need to get themselves an Atlas and have a serious look - this article is just one step away from including the Libyan Civil War under the umbrella of The Great Game. An article that was about British interests in Central Asia (and one might propose that it may yet still be about British interests in Central Asia even today!) has been hijacked to be all about the US and China, or even about the US and the world - we are not going to include here every geopolitical incident that happened around the world. Additionally, it would appear that on this topic the history enthusiasts have allowed the media to kill the message and much of what is written has been copied and pasted from other Misplaced Pages articles, and although interesting is unfortunately irrelevant. Regards, ] • ] 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Historical Whitewashing vs "Conspiracy Theory" accusations == |
|
|
|
|
|
I created an account just to comment on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
I chose a deliberately provocative title for my comment in opposition to the accusations and edits by user William Harris. |
|
|
|
|
|
User "William Harris" effectively crippled (no offense) this article and removed information correctly relating major conflicts in the Middle East with proper citations to geostrategic behaviour of the US that represents a continuation of the UK's past strategy against Russia. His actual justification seems to be a "scope creep" argument. However, the entire reason this alleged "scope creep" exists is because users decided that these things are too closely related to justify separate articles. This was the reason articles about concepts such as "The New Great Game" were deleted. His "argument" for individual edits was in some cases effectively dismissal of properly sourced information with significant international discussion (and what is effectively an entire field of academic study concerning UK/US-Russian rivalry with a multitude of international authors having discussed it for generations) as a "conspiracy theory". |
|
|
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is: He deleted large and well-researched portions of the article and I simply can't agree with that anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
The term "Great Game" or "New Great Game" usually describes the UK/US/Russian rivalry centering around geostrategic interest in the Central/Middle Eastern Region. Originally, the term described the rivalry between the UK and Russia but it has long since evolved. It is a highly complex issue that describes an ongoing geostrategic process played out by major powers and related parties. It is also an incredibly important topic and a central part of academic study in the field of international politics, etc. The rivalry between these major players and other parties has no clear beginning or end. To assert otherwise and not tolerate discussion opposing such narrow definition as "conspiracy theories" does not contribute to healthy discourse nor understanding of the long-term and ongoing conflicts in these regions. Not only is it an ongoing process, it's also an expanding process that very well should include China at this point as it evolved beyond a UK/US-Russian process the moment China started developing as an emerging superpower. User William Harris has, in my opinion, failed to properly justify his edits and not even the in my opinion believable/justifiable objection that things such as the US "Pivot to Asia" aren't closely related to it was properly argued for. |
|
|
|
|
|
This article was a very good and comprehensive chronological list of conflicts related to the (New) Great Game. |
|
|
|
|
|
Initially, there were two articles: "The Great Game" and "The New Great Game". The New Great Game article was eventually deleted/combined with the article for "The Great Game" because users apparently agreed that there don't need to be two articles as the topics are too closely related. When I saw that the article for "The Great Game" and "The New Great Game" got merged, I didn't agree for various reasons as I think there should be a differentiation between the UK's dominant role in anti-Russian aggression and proxy warfare and the continuation of the process dominated by the US. It was still acceptable, because no major pieces of important information were removed. However, now certain users try and eliminate US-incriminating historical facts from Misplaced Pages altogether or diffuse existing information so historically connected events seem unrelated. William Harris has spent days after days editing portions of this article to creepingly remove relevant information correctly connecting historical events to this truly central part of international relations and conflicts. Then he seems to have lost patience and started aggressively deleting large portions of the article giving no justification other than him personally being dissatisfied with the content. All because he things the very narrow definition of the concept he wanted to cite should be the one used as the basis for this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
So, to address the "conspiracy theory" accusations, here is an actual (semi-)conspiracy theory for you: I usually am a highly tolerant person and I respected opposing opinions for many years. I have never opened my mouth, never complained, never denied other people to delete certain things or add certain things I disagree with. I was an entirely passive user and for the most part enjoyed the seemingly healthy discourse. However, to be quite honest and blunt, the egregious historical whitewashing by what seem to be primarily American users on this website is getting on my nerves and while I can understand (for the most part) that people can disagree on topics for various reasons, these edits are completely unacceptable. Just because something doesn't agree with these users' personal wishes about reality, it doesn't mean they should let their biases stand in the way of well-researched facts and discussion of differing opinions using relevant sources. Especially if the topic is a thoroughly debated and important research topic in academia. This doesn't seem to be about opinions anymore, this seems to be about users deliberately trying to censor information that might show the US in a bad light. This often seems to be a deliberate process to whitewash history in favour of the US. And I most definitely can't help but wonder that it is the case with this article, too. Important and properly sourced information was just removed without providing proper substitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know how to undo the damage the user William Harris has done, but I do request a total revision of his edits and a restoration of the former version that includes events. How to go about this without destroying the work of people adding relevant discussion and sources or edited spelling mistakes? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edit: I read up on how to deal with such issues and will revert the article to its state before the extremely narrow (and effectively outdated definition) of the term Great Game was insisted upon by user William Harris to justify aggressive removal of content from the article and important information to understand the concepts being discussed and how today's conflicts are related to historical conflicts. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is not only my personal opinion: Other Misplaced Pages users previously decided that all these conflicts are indeed related and centered around UK/US geostrategic behaviour, which led to the merging of separate articles. A discussion of the topic doesn't benefit from using deliberately narrow definitions of an extremely broad and complex topic. It also doesn't benefit from treating highly related issues as separate issues entirely. If user William Harris isn't satisfied with the original concept of the Great Game being conflated with its heavily evolved status quo, he should at the very least revive the old article about the "New Great Game". Maybe this user wants to comment on this directly. I don't object to his edits as long as they ADD and not detract from the article. However, I don't know how to properly include them all. It is more important to me to restore the information previously contained in this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 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;"> ] |] </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;"> ] |] </span> 19:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of cited sources and sections == |
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it . The major contributor to these chances was ] () |
|
:All editors need to do on this page is clearly show a link between a historical event and its impact on CENTRAL ASIA, else we are in the world of ] and ]. To weave historical events - which of course have citations - as if there is some sort of conspiracy - based on some journalists having made a very comfortable income from the sale of books - borders on ]. If you go to Google Scholar and key in the names of these books, there are no matching citations in the academic world so they are given no credibility. There was no mention in the original form of this article about the US Silk Road Policy, making it further irrelevant. If, as you believe, there has been a great historical game being played in Central Asia over the past 200 years, then it would appear that the West has lost that game. If the "New Great Game" is of such an importance, then please feel free to recreate its own article but it does not belong here. Before making any changes, you will need to first read ] - you are not the only person here with a point of view. Regards, ] • ] 21:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# The change in style from short citations in a notes section supported by long citations in a references section to inline full citations. |
|
::And to clarify a point, I live on the opposite side of the world to the US and have no interest in white-washing anything to do with it. I have an ancestor that was part of the original Great Game. Regards, ] • ] 21:28, 21 July 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 haven't really addressed any criticism or concerns put forward in this talk I opened. Just blindly dismissed my position citing arbitrary problems you personally perceive. I, and apparently everyone else who edited the article before you, disagrees with your definition. So yes: Indeed, you are not the only person here with a point of view. Other users before you disagreed with you, hence the articles being merged and including all this data. You are undoing their work and contributions due to your highly narrow definition of a term. And no, all editors need to do on this page is show a link between a historical event and its impact on UK-Russian rivalry and therefore, of course, its continuation in form of US-Eastern rivalries. That is the Great Game (which, yes, in the past, was primarily played out in Central Asia, which was the origination of the term, which is something you can very well include in this article). Your outdated definition of the term, however, is insufficient and does not reflect the academic or journalistic zeitgeist. If you disagree with the merger of articles such as "The Great Game" and "The New Great Game" and would like a clearer distinction between the topics, maybe you should discuss that with the users who initially merged them and get convincing arguments from them or put in the necessary effort to split these articles. The fact of the matter is that geostrategic conflicts between the US and the Soviet Union, Russia, China or India are described as "The Great Game" or "The New Great Game". The topic is not always Central Asia but also other regions, e.g. coastal regions of the Indian Ocean. Not to mention that even when using your highly narrow and insufficient definition of the term, events until at least 1947 (British retreat from India) need to be included. For more info see any number of academic sources or standard academic reading. Unlike what you asserted, they are not only from "journalists" (not that that would invalidate their position or their use of the term). |
|
|
|
:::'''''' 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 ] |
|
Examples given: |
|
|
|
::::'{{green|refer to the inline calls on the "Further reading" section}}' which in-line calls were those? -- ] (]) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{green|"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 ], 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. |
|
https://ejas.revues.org/9709 "In dividing global history since the late nineteenth century, Walberg uses the term “Great Game” to designate the historical period. As he explains, the term “Great Game” refers to the nineteenth century rivalry between Russia and Britain. For instance, GGI refers to the imperial maneuvering of the nineteenth century up through to the Second World War. GGII is the label for the period of the Cold War in which the two superpowers, the USA and the USSR, competed with each other for global influence. GGIII focuses on the post-Cold War period from around 1989 to the present. There is a sub-category named “Endgames” which is also used by the author to represent transitional phases between the larger historical periods." |
|
|
|
:::'''''' 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). |
|
www.iwp.edu/docLib/20131022_EdwardsKiplingandMackinder.pdf "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 one theme that has become fundamental part of the analysis of the politico-military and economic situations |
|
|
|
::-- ] (]) 09:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
of the Caucasus and Central Asia has been the question of a New Great Game within, though not limited to, these regions." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
I can cite you lots of sources in other languages disagreeing with your narrow usage of the term, too, if you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::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) |
|
I'm sorry, but you are objectively wrong and your position on the subject based on an an insufficient understanding of the topic or a semantic argument that provides a definition that is simply not a sufficient basis for determining the relevance of content to this article. If you want separate articles about GGI/GGII/GGIII/NGG, feel free to do a split between these topics. Open a talk and convince people there need to be a split if you actually care about content on this website. Don't go around deleting highly relevant and important content just because you want to insist on some outdated definition of a term. I advise you to actually study the topic before further edits. |
|
|
|
:::::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Map == |
|
If you have no actual further arguments to make in favour of your usage of the term being correct and everyone else being incorrect, I would like to revert the article to its previous state. We can also work together to include your edits actually adding to the article (such as opposing opinions). If there is no further comment from you in 24 hours, I will interpret it as tacit agreement and revert the article to a previous version including these conflicts and the relevant discussion. |
|
|
|
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== |
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. — ] 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Before you commence further, you would be wise to wait several days for input from other editors who may feel aggrieved about not being given adequate time for consultation. You might also refer to ] as part of the wider ] process. (Misplaced Pages has its rules and we are required to comply with them.) |
|
|
:My position is as follows: |
|
|
:*A search of this Talk page and its archive file Archive 1 reveals that nobody here was consulted about any merger with the article titled "The New Great Game". |
|
|
:*A search of the archive file titled "The New Great Game" reveals that one person proposed a merger, got no reply, and after a year simply merged "The New Great Game" into this article. The page titled "The New Great Game" now acts as a Redirect to this article. |
|
|
:*The referent of this article is The Great Game. The referent has a clear definition and its derivation can be found within the article. Anything outside of the referent I regard as ] and not meeting ]. |
|
|
:*It is arguable whether the chapter within the article titled "Other Uses of the term Great Game" should have remained here, however I regarded it as having some historical merit plus it did not have a home of its own. |
|
|
:*Therefore, I propose that the Redirect be converted back to the article the "The New Great Game", it is not hard to do. Then it can be populated with material as its stakeholders desire. |
|
|
:Its place is not here. Regards, ] • ] 08:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
