| Revision as of 13:40, 29 December 2004 editMerovingian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,218 editsm →Request for Comment.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 7 January 2005 edit undoDejvid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,660 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| 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) | 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) | |||
Revision as of 23:45, 7 January 2005
This article has been cited as a source or otherwise recommended by the mainstream press. See Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages as a press source for details. Also see , an article by "Global Politician".
Geographic range
Didn't "The great game" refer to control of the entire region? Not just afghanistan, but the whole of the middle east... -Martin
- 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. Karl
There were more regions where the Great Game was 'played' than just in Afghanistan. There was also Persia and Tibet, where British and Russians tried to get their influence. Andre Engels 14:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
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.
Title of article
Why did you move The Great Game? it is The Great Game not a Great Great. Jooler 18:25, 25 Nov 2004 (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. —Lowellian (talk)] 17:49, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- For the same reason that the United States page is at United States rather than The United States, 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. —Lowellian (talk)] 21:05, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Or, if you want another example, for the same reason that the Cultural Revolution page is at Cultural Revolution rather than The Cultural Revolution. —Lowellian (talk)] 21:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Completly wrong analogies. Jooler
- How so? You don't explain how they are "completely wrong analogies". Was not the Great Game a historical event, like the Cultural Revolution? —Lowellian (talk)] 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 Cold War is also a "rivalry and strategic conflict", and that article is located at the Cold War 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 Cold War. —Lowellian (talk)] 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 The Great War - The Blitz - The Age of Enlightenment - The Age of Reason -The Sixties. Jooler 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: The Great War redirects to World War I, so that says nothing about Misplaced Pages policy. And I think both The Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Reason violate the Misplaced Pages standard and should be moved.
- Which is the correct sentence?
This strategic conflict was the Great Game.
- or:
This strategic conflict was The Great Game.
- 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.
- Neither sentence is correct. This strategic conflict, known as "The Great Game" ,was .... would be correct Jooler
Request for Comment.
- Simply put, it was called "The Great Game", and so should the article be called too. Dan100 15:43, Dec 22, 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.
Ray Foster 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 Canada's two national newspapers are titled The Globe and Mail with a "the" and National Post 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: The Pas, Manitoba, 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. Bearcat 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. This in particular leads me to believe that they are not inseparable. The book is not titled "The new The Great Game". And this settles it for me. I first heard about the Great Game in Flashman!Dr Zen 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)Dejvid 23:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)