Talk:Great Game/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Great Game in popular culture

Internet searches for the video game "Pathan to Glory" reveal that the game probably does not exist. This piece of trivia should be deleted unless proof of the existence of the game surfaces.

The section about "The Devil's Wind" reads like an advertisement and links to a pay site. Baudot 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tournament of Shadows

Can anyone find a reference for this statement? "In Russia the same rivalry and strategic conflict was known as the Tournament of Shadows (Турниры теней)." --Hq3473 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My copy of Hopkirk's "The Great Game" happens to be packed away right now, but I seem to recall that he mentions the term. An amusing Russian work from 1951, E.L. Steinberg's "History of British Agression in the Near East", might mention it, so I'll take a look. AllenHansen (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Great Game" pg 5:

Others, no less capable, were amateurs, often travellers of independent means, who chose to play what one of the Tsar's ministers called 'this tournament of shadows'. AllenHansen (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But "Турниры" is clearly a plural form. So it should actually be "Tournaments". --BjKa (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

It was more than just Central Asia, though that was the focus. See for example David Fromkin's Spring 1980 Foreign Affairs piece. MikeHerb 17:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Title of article and Request for Comment

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy. And I think both The Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Reason violate the Wikipedia 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.

—Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

• Simply put, it was called "The Great Game", and so should the article be called too. Dan100 15:43, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. --Ryan! | Talk 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.

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)

Here from RfC. There doesn't seem to be any consistent usage in the different places I've looked. I'd just go with gut feel, and include the 'the'. Noisy | Talk 19:09, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Something like "The Blitz", if missing the "The" could be confused with a blitz, like in football for example. But there is no potential for confusion when the "The" is omitted, because the title of this article isn't "great game", it's "Great Game"—note the capitalization, which make it clear what this article is about without any potential for confusion. —Lowellian (talk) 01:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish Jooler

Please give more responsive comments than "rubbish". —Lowellian (talk) 10:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is rubbish because it is alway, always always always - referred to as "the Blitz" - see [7], [8] anbd many many more. Jooler 12:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop moving this page there are at least 4 or 5 people who disagree with you. Jooler 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I was saying that The Blitz may possibly be an acceptable title because of how it can be confused with, for instance, a football blitz if it was at Blitz, but that Great Game is fundamentally different from The Blitz because the article title Great Game has no potential for confusion.

And other people disagree with you, for example, Dr Zen, above. —Lowellian (talk) 17:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Moving The Blitz or The Sixties or The Age of Enlightenment would all be wrong. You took this to Rfc to get some oppinions and the majority of opinions are disagreeing with you, but you ignore that and move the page anyway. Please cut it out. The point that you don't seem to be getting is that the word "the" is important, it wasn't just the Great Game, it was THE Great Game. Jooler 17:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check out Encarta - The Blitz and Encarta - The Great Game Jooler

First, in response to your Encarta links:

• http://encarta.msn.com/Great_Game.html
• http://encarta.msn.com/The_Great_Game.html

Both links end up getting you to a "Great Game" page rather than a "The Great Game" page.

Secondly, I (Lowellian) just took a trip to the library, since printed sources are more reliable than Internet sources. Here's what I found:

• From Davis, H. W. C. The Great Game in Asia (1800-1844). London: British Academy, 1927:
  • page 3: "Among them none were more daring, or more unfortunate, than those who took a hand in what I have called the Great Game."
• From Hopkirk, Peter. The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia. New York: Kodansha, 1992:
  • page xv: "Since this book was written, momentous events have taken place in Great Game country."
  • page 1: "Stoddart and Conolly were paying the price of engaging in a highly dangerous game — the Great Game, as it became known to those who risked their necks playing it."
  • page 2: "Stoddart and Conolly were merely two of the many officers and explorers, both British and Russian, who over the best part of a century took part in the Great Game..."
  • pages 4-5: "As the gap between the two front lines gradually narrowed, the Great Game intensified."
• From Meyer, Karl E., and Shareen Blair Brysac. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999:
  • page xviii: "In a word, an ongoing conflict known as the Great Game, or in Count Nesselrode's graphic phrase, the Tournament of Shadows..."
  • page xx: "So runs the accepted account of the Great Game, whose main incidents have been described in a number of admirable books, most recently by the British author Peter Hopkirk."
  • page xxii: "The players in the Great Game were men of action, not reflection."

I think that's enough, though if you want them I could provide many more quotes, since these entire books are about the Great Game. I have quoted here scholarly historical works, more reliable than Internet sources, ranging from as early as 1927 to as recent as 1999. "The" is never capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence, and indeed, "the" is sometimes omitted entirely. This page cannot be titled The Great Game; it must be titled Great Game just as Cold War is not at The Cold War and United States is not at The United States.

—Lowellian (talk) 18:26, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

We are talking about the title of the article. If we were talking about the Sixties or the Blitz or the Englightenment few people would capitalise them mid sentence, much like few people would capitalise 'the' when referring to 'the Times' 'the Beatles', 'the Football Association', 'the Kennel Club' or to 'The Automobile Association' (I've just noticed that this isn't at the correct title BTW!) but they should all be proceeded with 'The' as a subject heading. You are still ignoring the views of the majority of users who have submitted opinions on this subject and you have broken the three revert rule. Jooler 18:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On this occasion, I support Jooler. I don't think that you would necessarily capitalise the 'the', but the occasions that you would omit the 'the' in spoken or written usage are vanishingly small. We therefore devolve to common usage, and the article should be named 'The Great Game'. Also, those commenting on the change are in favour of including the 'the' by a large margin. Noisy | Talk 19:41, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

"The occasions that you would omit the 'the' in spoken or written usage are vanishingly small." But doesn't that same argument apply to both the United States and the Cold War? No one ever omits the "the" when referring to those two things. This question I would like Noisy to answer, if possible. —Lowellian (talk) 05:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think you make a fair argument for moving 'Cold War' to 'The Cold War', but I think 'United States' should stay where it is. (Only joking! ;-) )

There are many occasions when you would use United States or Cold War without the 'the', for instance when referring to a Cold War spy or a United States athlete. The question then becomes: would it be natural to refer to 'a Great Game player', or would you tend to opt for the construction: 'a player in the Great Game'? I would go for the second option, myself, but – let's face it – this is likely to be the only time I ever have to make the choice, so I don't exactly think I'm a world authority.

I refer to my earlier statement: my choice of 'The Great Game' as the name for the article is based primarily on gut feel. Noisy | Talk 10:21, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted this time. I am going to ask one question that I would like answered: How does this situation differ from the Cold War? —Lowellian (talk) 02:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Unlike "the Great Game", I think you would find it hard to find "the Cold War" written anywhere. The term 'cold war' was coined by George Orwell in 1945. In this the article in the Socialist magazine Tribune he said "... a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbors.". Arthur Connoly talked about 'the great game'. See [9] [10] etc.. Perhaps this fact should have been established earlier. Jooler 03:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are two meanings of cold war, depending on capitalization. In scholarly literature, when used in uppercase, "Cold War" refers to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs. When used in lowercase, it refers to a non-"hot" war; that is, a competition which has not escalated into outright violence. Orwell first coined the term "cold war", yes. Notice that he used it in lowercase. And notice that he is not specifically referring to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs. Later, his term came to be applied by many others to the struggle between the Western and Communist blocs, and that struggle became known as the "Cold War", in uppercase. It's the difference between the uppercase usage of:

The Western and Communist blocs struggled with each other during the Cold War.

and the lowercase usage of:

"Though persecution of priests and nuns is becoming commonplace in Latin American countries, the arrest and expulsion of such high-ranking Churchmen, including four U.S. bishops, presaged a dangerous escalation in the ongoing cold war between the continent's religious and military leaders." [11]

"A cold war of words: Gauging the rhetoric exchanged between India, Pakistan" [12]

Now, when used in uppercase to refer to the West/Communist conflict rather than just any non-shooting war, "Cold War" is overwhelmingly almost always preceded by "the". And yet we keep the article at Cold War (which is as I think it should be). I still don't think you've shown how it differs from this Great Game situation. —Lowellian (talk) 05:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. Show me somewhere where you can find "The Cold War" used in quotes!? - For every instance of this (if you can find any) I can find hundreds of examples of "The Great Game" Jooler 12:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely this should be at Great Game? Neutrality^talk 05:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

No read the debate. Jooler

I have just realised why Lowellian has been continuing to move this page and revert it. He is virtually the 'sole author' of the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) and he appears to be trying to get his way enforced without concerns about whether there is any validity in the neccesity of the definite article outside of his "rules". Exceptions are not allowed. Here we are talking about someone who has stated on that talk page that he thinks that The Beatles should be moved to Beatles. Presumably he would want to move The Who to Who (band) etc.. Jooler 12:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I (Lowellian) will reprint my comment from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) for that page here (note that I wrote this comment before Jooler wrote his comment above):

I would like to make a comment. The issue has been raised that this page was almost entirely written by me (Lowellian). While it is true that I wrote this page, I did not originate the policy. In writing this policy, what I was doing was explicitly writing down what was already the de facto policy on Wikipedia articles. I didn't place the article for the United States of America at United States; other Wikipedians else did. The vast majority of Wikipedia university articles are located at articles without a "the" at the front (and this is true even when the official name contains a "the"; the common name, omitting the "the," is used instead on the majority of articles); I did not place those university articles there; other Wikipedians did. Even when I personally disagreed with something, as in the case of the discussion of bands above, I went with the de facto standard on Wikipedia over my own personal opinion and added the information about bands to the page. So even though I put this policy down as explicit text, I was not the creator of this policy—the Wikipedia community was. —Lowellian (talk) 02:33, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

You say I wrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name), and then you accuse me of wanting to move bands away from The Who to Who (band). Uh, did you notice that the policy page which I wrote also says that The Who is okay, even though it is against my personal opinion? In writing that page, I followed majority Wikipedian opinion, not my own.

—Lowellian (talk) 01:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right. So you are confirming that hosting the band called The Who at The Who goes against your personal opinion? Is that correct? If this is correct then we have established that you have prejudicial views about the use of the definite article, even when it is entirely appropriate to do so. This entirely explains your insistence on continuing to disrupt this page despite majority opinion being against your view. I really think you should just drop it. Jooler 11:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template

(Section added for convenience - Noisy | Talk 17:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC))

You're totaly correct. I'm interested in making sure that articles on Wikipedia are consistently named. This consistency is more important to me than my personal opinion; thus, I am supporting leaving The Who where it is because it is consistent with other band names even when it goes against my personal opinion. The title of this article on the Great Game, however, is inconsistent with the title of other similar articles on Wikipedia. The insistence of using "the" in this article name is POV because it artificially elevates the importance of this historical event over other similar historical events which do not use "the" in their title on Wikipedia. —Lowellian (talk) 19:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

What utter utter bullshit! There is no other word for it. Jooler

The very fact that your personal opinion is the "The Who" should not be located at The Who simply shows that you have no understanding of this issue whatsoever. Jooler 22:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of this particular feature of diplomatic history referred to in any other way than "The Great Game". One hears and seas "Seven Years War", "Thirty Years War" and so on without the "The". Stirling Newberry 12:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice debating style, Jooler.  :-(

Lowellian, while I appreciate the effort that you have put in to recording MoS and policy elements – and I have used them to point out where people are not complying with recorded policy – I think this is an area where a prescriptive policy is more than likely to be over the top. In this instance, there are so many exceptions that the number of rules probably exceed the number of items under discussion. The overwhelming majority of those who have responded to the RfC are against you, in this instance, and flexibility as provided by redirects make the matter just a debating point, rather than a real problem for Wikipedia. I have a particular hang-up about companies being recorded under a famous brand name, rather than their registered or stock exchange name, but the weight of opinion is against me, so I've given up on that issue. It would be helpful if you could just chalk this down to experience, and move on. Noisy | Talk 17:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Taking recent edit summaries to this talk page:

• 15:44, Feb 10, 2005 Lowellian (you can't just remove a disputed tag when there is a dispute)
• 17:37, Feb 10, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the facts and correct use of the tag and is just being used as an excuse to carry on a one man crusade)
• 06:20, Feb 15, 2005 Lowellian m (Reverted edits by Jooler to last version by Lowellian)
• 08:55, Feb 15, 2005 Stirling Newberry (Removing title pov - see talk)
• 03:52, Feb 21, 2005 Lowellian (the talk page clearly shows that there is a dispute)
• 07:01, Feb 24, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the facts and correct use of the tag and is just being used as an excuse to carry on a one man crusade)
• 21:38, Feb 26, 2005 Lowellian (a dispute exists over the title of the page)
• 05:41, Feb 27, 2005 Jooler (the use of the ({{titlenpov}}) on this article contray to the correct usage of the tag)
• 22:34, Mar 1, 2005 Lowellian ({{titlenpov}} is for when there is a dispute over the title of the article, which applies to this case)

—Lowellian (talk) 03:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your claim is "The insistence of using "the" in this article name is a POV because it artificially elevates the importance of this historical event over other similar historical events which do not use "the" in their title on Wikipedia" - this is simply nonsense. The correct name for article, as half a dozen people have told you, is not "Great Game" but "The Great Game". This has no more to do with POV than does the inclusion of 'Great'. To call this article "The Game" or "Game" is just as wrong as calling it "Great Game". You do not, I note, put an NPOV tag on The Age of Enlightenment or on any other article. Yet you insist on putting it on this article. Your insistence that including "The" infers a POV is just the latest incarnation of your campaign against its inclusion on this article for your own reasons. Now, for the love of Mike please dropt it. This behaviour is not befitting from someone with Administrator priviledges. Jooler 08:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I have to side with "The Great Game" on this one, despite Wikipedia policy. First of all, I like the point User:Bearcat made about The National Post. As with many linguistic issues, one must go with feeling on what sounds proper rather than rules, and it feels totally wrong without "The". So far as comparisons with "Cold War" go, the omission of "The" makes sense there because although "The Cold War" occurred between the US and Russia during the last century, a Cold War is possible between any set of countries or bodies. Cold War is a more general concept which means something without "The", and the example of Russia and the US is simply the most prominant case in modern history. In contrast, "Great Game" isn't a general concept and means nothing withour "The" attached to the front, in which case it means the specific struggle. Laura Scudder 23:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Big-time POV

Wow. This article needs a POV tag right at the top. It doesnt even mention Iran or Persia. Considering that the very identity of Iran today is largely a product of British-Russian dominance in Persia, this article is ludicrous. If it werent for those two powers, Iran would today be twice the size it currently is.--Zereshk 09:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you had a crystal ball in your possession ;) If Iran and the rest were part of the “Great Game” then of course they should be mentioned.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.132.193 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Explanation

Provide a citation for the "russophobia" thing from a couple of reliable sources. Also, the statement "No evidence that..." had best be similarly cited before being restored. It certainly continues to be a mainstream view among scholars of South Asian and Afghan/Iranian history. Hornplease 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dauodwa's comment

The number of Afghan soldiers is not referenced, and probably inaccurate. Additionally, the way in which the segment about the First Anglo Afghan was written reflected a bias towards the British forces, as seen in the use of the word "ruthless". Furthermore, Dr.Brydon did not escape perse, but was told to tell the British of the defeat of the colonial army in Afghanistan. Dauodwa (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Barely readable

This could use the attention of a native English speaker. 74.212.17.248 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry before Crimean War?

Russian sources are totally mute on any rivalry with the Brits over Persian/Afghan/Indian/CentralAsian affairs until the events that preceded the Crimean War (the rivalry of 1857-1907 is, on the opposite, elevated to a sort of Cold War). They note some British influence over the Caucasian rebels, but nothing on a decisive scale; although Nicholas I had his streak of victories in Persia and Turkey in the 1820s, and then clashed with the Brits diplomatically over the Balkan affairs, all these gains were dwarfed by subsequent troubles in Poland. The "southern question" disappeared, at least until the 1848 Revolutions in Hungary (again, it's Balkans not Persia or Afghanistan).

Could it be that the Russians completely missed "the Game" they were supposed to play or be played, or did they eliberately downplayed the real rivalry, or perhaps the Brits exaggerated their story? NVO (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that Russia just went on doing its thing (expanding its territory) and was mostly ignorant about how the outside world would look on this, and especialy what the pre-existing Powers were thinking and worrying about in relation to the growing Russian Empire. The Crimean war was a shock for Russia, but for those who fought against her it was seen as an action that would have been inevitable at some time. Meowy 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Surely the most delightfully cutting criticism was said by Lord Salisbury in the House of Commons in 1877.
A great deal of misapprehension arises from the popular use of maps on a small scale. As with such maps you are able to put a thumb on India and a finger on Russia, some persons at once think that the political situation is alarming and that India must be looked to. If the noble Lord would use a larger map — say one on the scale of the Ordnance Map of England — he would find that the distance between Russia and British India is not to be measured by the finger and thumb, but by a rule.
Meowy 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The politics for India and Pakistan

"I am going to say that it has been a long debate between the big and powerful nations"

i believe that india and pakistan should not be a part of the great game because the relations between the two countries, atleast on the indian side is not controlled by any external factor. Moreover i believe that slowly, india and pakistan are becoming contenders in the great game, as pakistan has helped the isaf to a huge extent and india is the second largest provider of foreign aid to afghanistan and is investing billions of dollars in the central asian "-stans"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_india#Russia_and_Central_Asia --Rishab1996 (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Tibet

Silly British and American always think Tibet was a buffer state among Russian Empire, British India and Qing Dynasty (China),actually, Tibet has been a part of China since that period. 198.155.145.88 03:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Tibet was independant up until the 18th century, even capturing the Chinese capitol Chang'An at one point but was conquered by Qing China, rebelled, was re-conquered and the Dalai Lhama was granted political and economic leadership of the country so long as it remained part of China. Civil disturbance broke out, British troops restored order and forced China to pay compensation for the costs incurred in doing so as well as granting it control so long as it was never formally annexed. 150 years in a nutshell. 83.104.138.141 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

links, show the links --Rishab1996 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"the United States displaced Britain as the global power, asserting its influence in the Middle East in pursuit of oil"

The article contains "the United States displaced Britain as the global power, asserting its influence in the Middle East in pursuit of oil". This is typical biased Wikipedia claptrap; the extremist delusion that America is only in the Middle East for the oil. Whoever wrote that line really 'stuck it to da man'. No wonder no-one takes this jumble-bag of trivia and misinformation that calls itself an encyclopaedia seriously.

America shouldn't even of been mentioned in this article, it wasn't involved, and it was a meager power during the Era were on about.86.186.3.245 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

False and silly. The "Cold War" played by America and the Soviet Union was, in many ways, the sucessor game to the "Great Game". Numerous writers have pointed this out, though I apologise for not being able to give sources (I have none to hand). It had nothing at all to do with oil, it was military bases, front lines, and peoples' minds. Why do you think Pakistan became so flooded by American military aid and advisors? Why do you think America was so concerned about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and so paranoid about every little Communist electoral victory in India in the 1950s? Meowy 19:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

the great game goes on well into the 21st century. In fact it still continues. And, sir the thought that the USA is in the middle east for anything other than oil is being delusional, with all due respect.--Rishab1996 (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Great Game in C21st

I have changed the name of the section heading from "The New Great Game" to "Twenty-first century" because although many articles 10 years ago talked about the "New Great Game" and linked to to some sort of gold rush over resources (if only it were that simple and rational), there have been many articles published in the last couple of years that simply call it "The Great Game" and the motivations seem to be about strategic geo-politics, international and regional security, IE the old Great Game. I have put in some example citations to cover this the oldest being an Economist Article from 2007 and most recent is October 2010. The selection is meant to be representative, but I have selected two that I have quoted from in the citation:

• Rubin, Barnett R.; Rashid, Ahmed (November/December 2008). "From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan". Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations). "The Great Game is no fun anymore".
• Ivens, Martin (24 January 2010). "More guile needed in the Afghan game". Sunday Times. "The new strategy proposed by the US commander in Afghanistan... A settlement of outsiders as well as insiders is also vital. Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and China have to have a stake in a deal or they will have an incentive to break it. ...A new world order is being tested in Afghanistan. George W Bush left this region in a terrible mess, but now it’s President Obama’s mess and ours. Can western intervention still work? It requires low cunning as well as skill to play the great game the British empire once made its own."

The first because although it is pertinent and relevant source, I quoted it Mr Rubin is obviously not a fan of Liverpool United if he were he would know that professional games are usually played for reasons other than fun ("Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.") and the second quote is to show that there a many players in the Great Game. I have also included as a citation and article "Jaswant Singh (25 September 2010). China and India: the great game's new players. The Guardian." because although Afghanistan is the cockpit of the game other regions in the Himalayas are also on the board as rivalry between China and India two neighbours and rapidly growing regional powers is also part of this never ending diplomatic and strategic "game". -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that if this section is to be kept, and not considered to be off-topic, something needs to be said about the Cold War replacing the Great Game, and America replacing the British Empire as its chief player. If such content is not added to fill the gap between the Great Game ending in the 1950s and the present-day, then this "21st century" section has as much validity as the article also having a section on the "Great Game" between the Roman and Sassanid empires. The article is not about all superpower "great games", or all power struggles in central Asia, or all uses of the phrase Great Game, it is just about the one between the British and Russian empires. Meowy 19:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

this section should be expanded, but not as of now, this part will have to wait at least until the US forces leave Afghanistan, let's see what happens then, because the impact of the Americans leaving will have an affect right up to Jammu and Kashmir in India, due to the islamist terrorists becoming more active there as lesser people would be needed in Afghanistan. Also, the spread of the taliban in pakistan, according to me, should be considered a part of the great game, but as the situation is still developing, nothing can be said as of now. --Rishab1996 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Qing China

Eric Enno Tamm is not a historian on China or the Qing dynasty. factually incorrect information sourced from his book was removed. The Qing dynasty did modernize its military and fortified garrisons with modern engineering and krupp artillery, with soldiers carrying modern rifles. They also built modern arsenals at plaves like Lanzhou. This modernization was done as early as the 1870s and 1880s, and the British viewed it as so successful that they were considering an alliance with China against Russia during this time. chinese armies equipped with modern german weapons defeated Yaqub Beg's rebels at Kashgar and the Russian empire viewed the chinese military stationed in xinjiang and manchuria as a serious military threat. During this time, britain also took great pains not to militarily antagonize China over affairs like the panthay rebellion and burma.

Rajmaan (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations no longer used in the article

Citations no longer used in the article

The Playing Fields of Asia, nytimes.com, 9 January 2000, retrieved 22 August 2012 Great Game, set and match, guardian.co.uk, 7 January 2001, retrieved 22 August 2012 Ahrari, Mohammed E.; Beal, James (January 1996), The New Great Game in Muslim Central Asia, Institute for National Strategic Studies and National Defense University, retrieved 27 August 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (help) Cohen, Ariel (25 January 1996), The New "Great Game": Oil Politics in the Caucasus and Central Asia, The Heritage Foundation, retrieved 27 August 2012 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (help) Geyer, Georgie Anne (17 February 1992), U.S. Flag Waves Inside A Proud New Nation, Universal Press Syndicate Meyer, Karl Ernest; Brysac, Shareen Blair (2006), Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Asia, Basic Books, ISBN 978-0465045761 Rashid, Ahmed (10 April 1997), "Central Asia: Power Play", Far Eastern Economic Review {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Sneider, Daniel (5 May 1992), New 'Great Game' In Central Asia, The Christian Science Monitor

Placed here to help other editors with some possible sources for future development. -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

I also see the issues about merging this with the Cold War. But I think that the "Chronology" section is a condensed of everything that's wrong about putting contemporary history into the article. Crimea? Really? It's almost something to be expected of the blog of a paranoid-on-the-run! This article needs some love for a change. Stop degrading it into a bar's political discussion. It'll end up locked if this keeps going on.--200.82.53.65 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this article suffering from scope creep?

The Great Game was a rivalry between the British Empire and the Russian/Soviet Empire. And the article itself says until about the 1920's. So why is there a section dealing with the Cold War and other "future" events to the article? It seems like this article has some stuff tacked on to the end because there isn't anywhere else to put it...except that there must be. The Great Game is a defined period in history, and the other things that happened afterward and maybe were influenced by it don't belong in this article. Hires an editor (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hires an editor, 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 WP:SYNTHESIS - items strung together to lead a reader down a certain path. I am open to suggestions as how this article might be reformed. Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the rather extended scope of the article is based on two sources which are used to support that "In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has informally continued in its usage to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area, especially in Afghanistan and Iran/Persia."

The problem is that "geopolitical rivalries in Central Asia" and its periphery could probably be used as an umbrella term for a long series of conflicts such as the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (1941), the 1953 Iranian coup d'état (1953), the Iranian Revolution (1978-1979), the Iran–Iraq War (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 History of Central Asia, History of the Middle East, and History of South Asia? Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

At any one time, you will find an academic - in addition to any number of media commenters - that will say anything on any topic but that does not make it true. In both sources cited, the term Great Game is used as a metaphor and neither writer is actually contending that the Great Game continued on through history unabated. It would not be hard to find other works debunking their use of that metaphor but nobody has bothered to pursue that because that is not the direction someone wants this article to go. The scope of this article needs to be limited to Central Asia, but because no power is going to get there through either Russia or China then the only two pathways available to get into Central Asia is from southern Asia - either Iran or Pakistan/Afghanistan, which need to be included. However, that does not mean that the entire histories of those countries should be included as an indicator of "The Great Game", which is what has happened with this article. The Shar of Iran was deposed, where is the connection? None mentioned in this article and only that it happened. The Middle East and the Trans-caucus are not Southern Asia, and some contributors here need to get themselves an Atlas and have a serious look - this article is just one step away from including the Libyan Civil War under the umbrella of The Great Game. An article that was about British interests in Central Asia (and one might propose that it may yet still be about British interests in Central Asia even today!) has been hijacked to be all about the US and China, or even about the US and the world - we are not going to include here every geopolitical incident that happened around the world. Additionally, it would appear that on this topic the history enthusiasts have allowed the media to kill the message and much of what is written has been copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles, and although interesting is unfortunately irrelevant. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical Whitewashing vs "Conspiracy Theory" accusations

I created an account just to comment on this.

I chose a deliberately provocative title for my comment in opposition to the accusations and edits by user William Harris.

User "William Harris" effectively crippled (no offense) this article and removed information correctly relating major conflicts in the Middle East with proper citations to geostrategic behaviour of the US that represents a continuation of the UK's past strategy against Russia. His actual justification seems to be a "scope creep" argument. However, the entire reason this alleged "scope creep" exists is because users decided that these things are too closely related to justify separate articles. This was the reason articles about concepts such as "The New Great Game" were deleted. His "argument" for individual edits was in some cases effectively dismissal of properly sourced information with significant international discussion (and what is effectively an entire field of academic study concerning UK/US-Russian rivalry with a multitude of international authors having discussed it for generations) as a "conspiracy theory".

The fact of the matter is: He deleted large and well-researched portions of the article and I simply can't agree with that anymore.

The term "Great Game" or "New Great Game" usually describes the UK/US/Russian rivalry centering around geostrategic interest in the Central/Middle Eastern Region. Originally, the term described the rivalry between the UK and Russia but it has long since evolved. It is a highly complex issue that describes an ongoing geostrategic process played out by major powers and related parties. It is also an incredibly important topic and a central part of academic study in the field of international politics, etc. The rivalry between these major players and other parties has no clear beginning or end. To assert otherwise and not tolerate discussion opposing such narrow definition as "conspiracy theories" does not contribute to healthy discourse nor understanding of the long-term and ongoing conflicts in these regions. Not only is it an ongoing process, it's also an expanding process that very well should include China at this point as it evolved beyond a UK/US-Russian process the moment China started developing as an emerging superpower. User William Harris has, in my opinion, failed to properly justify his edits and not even the in my opinion believable/justifiable objection that things such as the US "Pivot to Asia" aren't closely related to it was properly argued for.

This article was a very good and comprehensive chronological list of conflicts related to the (New) Great Game.

Initially, there were two articles: "The Great Game" and "The New Great Game". The New Great Game article was eventually deleted/combined with the article for "The Great Game" because users apparently agreed that there don't need to be two articles as the topics are too closely related. When I saw that the article for "The Great Game" and "The New Great Game" got merged, I didn't agree for various reasons as I think there should be a differentiation between the UK's dominant role in anti-Russian aggression and proxy warfare and the continuation of the process dominated by the US. It was still acceptable, because no major pieces of important information were removed. However, now certain users try and eliminate US-incriminating historical facts from Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindknecht (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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 WP:ROC and Wikipedia:Out of scope. 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 WP:FRINGE. 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 WP:TALK - you are not the only person here with a point of view. Regards, William Harris • talk • 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, William Harris • talk • 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindknecht (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Before you commence further, you would be wise to wait several days for input from other editors who may feel aggrieved about not being given adequate time for consultation. You might also refer to Wikipedia:Consensus as part of the wider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. (Wikipedia 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 WP:OFFTOPIC and not meeting Wikipedia:Relevance of content.
• 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 WP:EDRED. WP:SPINOFF requires a separate article, and given that the article in its original form was over 70kb in size then WP:SIZERULE also supports a spinoff. Then it can be populated with material as its stakeholders desire.

Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - Spinoff to a new article

Hello all, in accordance with the policy, I propose to WP:SPINOFF 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 WP:SIZERULE. 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, William Harris • talk • 06:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Now actioned. The article "The Great Game" will from here on be subject to citing WP:CITE reliable WP:RELIABLE sources that are verifiable WP:VERIFY and written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello Lindknecht, there are some comments on your Talk page about Wikipedia 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,   William Harris |talk  09:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• You appear not to have see this talk page and I will await your response.   William Harris |talk  21:05, 2 August 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,  William Harris |talk  04:32, 2 September 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,   William Harris |talk  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. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wiki-Ed, 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,  William Harris |talk  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 Wikipedia.

Hello Wiki-Ed, 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 Malcolm Yapp 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. Wiki-Ed (talk) 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  William Harris |talk  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. Wiki-Ed (talk) 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,  William Harris |talk  08:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I sometimes think Wikipedia is heading towards being 'complete'. Then I look around and realise how much more there is to do! Keep up the good work. Wiki-Ed (talk) 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 British Empire. Regards,  William Harris |talk  09:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello User:Rjensen and User:Wiki-Ed. 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 Wikipedia articles are a compromise of differing opinions, which over time evolve to be closer to the mark. Regards,  William Harris |talk  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. Rjensen (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If the article title was descriptive like "The Korean War" or "Russia-United Kingdom relations" then we wouldn't need to explain what it means or who uses it. However, since "The Great Game" is a quote and it is used primarily - today - by historians, not the general public, then we do. (If you used the term in the UK today without any other qualification then most people would think you were talking about football.) And, as User:William Harris has highlighted above, some historians reject the term entirely, so to present it as an agreed term for this historical episode is misleading. I suppose the opening line should actually say: "The Great Game" is a term used by some historians. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)