Talk:Great Game: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:45, 7 January 2005 editDejvid (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users7,661 editsNo edit summary← 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
(264 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	''This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See ] for details. Also see ]], an article by "Global Politician"''.
			{{Talk header}}
			{{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}}
			}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			\|archiveprefix=Talk:Great Game/Archive
			\|format= %%i
			\|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
			\|age=2160\|<!--90 days-->
			\|minkeepthreads=4
			\|maxarchsize=100000
			\|numberstart=1
			\|archivebox=yes
			\|box-advert=yes
			}}

			== Tournament of Shadows? ==
	==Geographic range==
			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 Additionally, there is no source Russian historical document that uses the term Tournament of Shadows.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 ==
	Didn't "The great game" refer to control of the entire region? Not just afghanistan, but the whole of the middle east... -]
	: I've heard a bit about it, and read a bit - but not a lot. My impression was that it was a conflict between Russia & Britian, centered in Afgastan. I am planning to do some more reasearch on it, and post bits and pieces. So far what I have read seems to relate just to Afganistan both past and present. Ie: the great game has not ended. ]

			I disapprove of two changes that have been made to this article since I last edited it . The major contributor to these chances was ] ()
	There were more regions where the Great Game was 'played' than just in Afghanistan. There was also ] and ], where British and Russians tried to get their influence. ] 14:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			# 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?
			:::'''''' 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.
	I too think that Afghanistan was only one part – albeit a central one – of the ‘Great Game’. In their (excellent) ‘Tournament of Shadows’ Meyer and Brysac include the whole political history of Anglo-Russian (both Imperial and Soviet) Asian expansion from the ‘Kim’ level right up to the Foreign Office level. In addition to this they mention Napoleons alexandrine fantasy of Asiatic conquest, the Kaiser’s bid for Near Eastern dominion, as well as a Nazi expedition to Tibet – in search of more Aryans. Finally they conclude with the arrival of the United States in the 40’s taking over from the British – ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’. However in his seminal work “the Great Game’ – which is even better than ‘tournament’ – Peter Hopkirk gives a more limited definition of the Great Game as the Anglo-Russian rivalry central Asia. (Incidentally this is a notoriously problematic geographical description – even the Royal Central Asian Society eventually gave up and changed their name to the Royal Society for Asian Affairs) A rivalry which concluded in 1907, with the Anglo-Russian Entente – any Central Asian rivalry that occurred after that was something else. Kipling on the other hand, in Kim, said; “When every one is dead the Great Game is finished. Not before.” Which for my money is the best description…Kris Radford 1 September 2004.
			:::'''''' 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).
	==Title of article==
			::-- ] (]) 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)
	Why did you move ]? it is '''The''' Great Game not a Great Great. ] 18:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			::::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)
	:''Note: the article was originally at ''The Great Game''. I moved the article to ''Great Game'' around October 11, 2004, where the article sat for the next month and half until someone—I'm assuming Jooler—moved it to ''The Great Game'' around November 25. ]—] (])] 17:49, Nov 27, 2004 (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)

			== Map ==
	:For the same reason that the United States page is at ] rather than ], even though we say "the United States is a nation" not "United States is a nation." The article ''the'' isn't used for terms in Misplaced Pages page titles except in book titles, for example. ]—] (])] 21:05, Nov 25, 2004 (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? ] (]) 22:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

			==1873 Anglo-Russian Agreement==
	:Or, if you want another example, for the same reason that the Cultural Revolution page is at ] rather than ]. ]—] (])] 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (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.

			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)
	Completly wrong analogies. ]

	:How so? You don't explain how they are "completely wrong analogies". Was not the Great Game a historical event, like the Cultural Revolution? ]—] (])] 21:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

	:Or maybe you characterize the Great Game as a "rivalry and strategic conflict" (to use the words directly from the introductory sentence of the article)? Well, the ] is also a "rivalry and strategic conflict", and that article is located at the ] rather than ''The Cold War''. The Cold War may be the Cold War rather than just any cold war, but the article is still located at ]. ]—] (])] 21:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

	"The Great Game" is '''never''' is never referred to without the definite article it is an historical period like like ] - ] - ] - ] -]. ] 20:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	:You say "never referred to without a definite article"? Neither is the United States, nor the Cold War, and yet the articles are where they are. Regarding your examples: ] redirects to ], so that says nothing about Misplaced Pages policy. And I think both ] and ] violate the Misplaced Pages standard and should be moved.

	:Which is the correct sentence?

	::<pre>This strategic conflict was the Great Game.
	</pre>

	:or:

	::<pre>This strategic conflict was The Great Game.
	</pre>

	:The former is correct, as you will find if you read any historical work on the subject, including the references cited at the end of the article.

	:]—] (])] 07:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


	::Neither sentence is correct. '''This strategic conflict, known as "The Great Game" ,was ....''' would be correct ]
	::
	::
	::
	::
	::
	::

	== Request for Comment. ==

	*Simply put, it was called "The Great Game", and so should the article be called too. ] 15:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
	**I agree. --]</font> \| ] 13:40, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

	In response to your request for comment, here's my two cents worth on a subject that I know nothing about. My first impression was that "The Great Game" was a reference to a historic period, so I had to make an assessment of those historic periods I was aware of. There are lots of them; too many to list, but they do use the definitive article, both capitalized or not, as in "The War Between the States" or "The Prime of Miss Jean Brody." One thing that came to my mind also was how people might search for information. In a Google search, the word "the" would automatically be omitted but the response to search terms "great game" resulted in hyperlinks for "the great game" almost entirely. Traditional usage is the rule in the newpaper business in which I worked most of my life as a research assistant. I tried to find a newspaper style sheet that addresses this issue but couldn't come up with one. However, I know the editors of a newspaper would opt for tradition. Since Kipling make the term popular, it seems to me you would use his example. Sorry I can't be of more help. I'm trying to get feedback on a Request for Comment myself (Deaf) and saw your request. This is my first experience at it.

	] 20:59, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	The question comes down to whether "the" is part of the proper name of the thing. To bring in another example, the articles on ]'s two national newspapers are titled '']'' ''with'' a "the" and '']'' ''without'' a "the", even though it's grammatically almost impossible to refer to either paper without putting a "the" in the sentence -- the difference being that ''The Globe and Mail'' actually has a "the" right in the masthead title at the top of its front page, while the ''National Post'' does not. If the definite article is ''part'' of the proper name of the thing, it needs to be in the title regardless of any other naming conventions. Another example: ], where "the" is part of the town's proper name. ''Pas, Manitoba'' would be unacceptable. So the question comes down to whether you would capitalize the "the" in a reference to this. Would you write "Arthur Connolly's concept of the Great Game" or "Arthur Connolly's concept of The Great Game"? If the latter would be more proper, then "the" goes in the title; if the former would be more correct, then it doesn't. ] 01:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	I came from RfC too. Without thinking about it, I'd write the latter of Bearcat's examples but a quick Google shows this isn't ''always'' the case. Given that, I think the article probably should follow the convention. in particular leads me to believe that they are not inseparable. The book is not titled "The new The Great Game". And settles it for me. I first heard about the Great Game in Flashman!] 03:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	To me "The Great Game" brings up all its Kiplingesque conotations. Great Game
	is nothing. It has to have the "the" (IMHO)] 23:45, 7 Jan 2005 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Afghanistan Top‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Empire High‑importance

	British Empire portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Top‑importance

	Asia portal Great 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India High‑importance

	India portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / British / European / Russian & Soviet / South Asia

This 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Russia: History / Military / Physical geography Top‑importance

	Russia portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Geography Top‑importance

This 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

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Misplaced Pages requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Misplaced Pages requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Top‑importance

	Europe portal This 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
Top	This 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)

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 "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: