| Revision as of 11:16, 9 September 2016 editRjensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers226,983 edits →Recent edits: this article is about a 19th century event not about 21st century historians← 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 |
| (42 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) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Tournament of Shadows? == |
|
== Is this article suffering from scope creep? == |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it . The major contributor to these chances was ] () |
|
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 change in style from short citations in a notes section supported by long citations in a references section to inline full citations. |
|
|
# 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? |
|
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) |
|
|
|
:::'''''' 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 ] |
|
|
::::'{{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. |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
:::'''''' 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). |
|
== Historical Whitewashing vs "Conspiracy Theory" accusations == |
|
|
|
::-- ] (]) 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. ] ] 11:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
I created an account just to comment on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::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 chose a deliberately provocative title for my comment in opposition to the accusations and edits by user William Harris. |
|
|
|
:::::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 == |
|
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". |
|
|
|
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== |
|
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. |
|
|
|
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) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
Examples given: |
|
|
|
|
|
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." |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
of the Caucasus and Central Asia has been the question of a New Great Game within, though not limited to, these regions." |
|
|
|
|
|
I can cite you lots of sources in other languages disagreeing with your narrow usage of the term, too, if you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: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 titled "The New Great Game", it is not hard to do refer ]. ] requires a separate article, and given that the article in its original form was over 70kb in size then ] also supports a spinoff. Then it can be populated with material as its stakeholders desire. |
|
|
:Regards, ] • ] 08:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposal - Spinoff to a new article == |
|
|
Hello all, in accordance with the policy, I propose to ] the section of this article dealing with the subject of "The New Great Game" into its own article. To quote from the policy: "...they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible...". Additionally, the article is now 35kb in size and an expansion of that topic under this article will lead to an issue with ]. If nobody objects, then on Friday, 29 of July I intend to execute the Spinoff and establish the new article - with categorisations and Talk page in place - ready to be populated with text by interested editors. Regards, ] • ] 06:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Now actioned. The article "The Great Game" will from here on be subject to citing ] reliable ] sources that are verifiable ] and written from a neutral point of view ]. Regards, ] • ] 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
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;"> ] |] </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;"> ] |] </span> 21:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Scope== |
|
|
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;"> ] |] </span> 21:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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. |
|
|
::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;"> ] |] </span> 21:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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. |
|
|
::::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''. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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. |
|
|
::::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. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
|
::::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;"> ] |] </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;"> ] |] </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;"> ] |] </span> 09:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anglo-Russian collusion over Central Asia == |
|
|
|
|
|
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;"> ] |] </span> 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent edits == |
|
|
|
|
|
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;"> ] |] </span> 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::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) |
|
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}
