Talk:Great Game

Archives (Index)

1

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 Additionally, there is no source Russian historical document that uses the term Tournament of Shadows.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)

1. The change in style from short citations in a notes section supported by long citations in a references section to inline full citations.
2. 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?

[interjection] 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).

[interjection] 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.

[interjection] A quick read of the Wikipedia 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 [in] 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)